On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> >> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> >> >> >> > I just re-published all the component sites and notice > that (by > >> >> >> >> > mistake) it had used a patched copy of the > >> >> >> >> > maven-project-info-reports-plugin that I have in my local > repo > >> >> >> >> > (sorry!). Anyway I submitted a patch to maven to include > the Java > >> >> >> >> > version on the dependencies page. The feedback I got was > they prefer > >> >> >> >> > it on the project summary page - so I submitted a patch > for that as > >> >> >> >> > well. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Logging is an example of using different source/target > versions: > >> >> >> >> > http://commons.apache.org/logging/dependencies.html > >> >> >> >> > http://commons.apache.org/logging/project-summary.html > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The part about "It has been built using Java 1.5" in the > dependencies > >> >> >> >> report isn't accurate. 1.5 is the version used (by you) to > build and > >> >> >> >> publish the site. I used 1.4 when I did the logging release, > so having > >> >> >> >> anything else there is misleading. I think that part should > be removed. > >> >> >> >> What extra value does it give to users, providing it was > correct? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I could ask the same question of maven and the Build-Jdk it > puts in > >> >> >> > the manifest which is really mis-leading since the > source/target > >> >> >> > settings are missing - except here in commons. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The Build-Jdk in this case is the actual JDK that was used to > produce > >> >> >> the jar file. So it is correct. Having the source and target in > there is > >> >> >> much better though, for the reasons you mention below. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > My answer though is its a warning - since setting the target > option > >> >> >> > doesn't actually guarantee it will run on that version if > API's from > >> >> >> > later java versions have been used. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> But in this case it's not a warning. It the JDK that was used to > build > >> >> >> the *site* - not the jar file. That doesn't tell a user anything. > >> >> > > >> >> > OK looks like we're mis-communicating here - what exactly did you > mean > >> >> > by "providing it was correct" in your original question? I took it > to > >> >> > mean "providing it was the value used to build the jar for the > >> >> > release". > >> >> > >> >> Right, that's what I meant. > >> > > >> > OK well that was the question I was answering - not if it wasn't > >> > correct which I didn't disagree with. > >> > >> Great, so do we agree on this summary? > > > > No not really - the source and target versions don't necessarily > > relate to the release either. Take codec - Henri just bumped that up > > to 1.4 - but the Codec 1.3 release was (I assume) JDK 1.3 compatible. > > I was asking, because I wanted to fix and close MPIR-80. > > We really do need properly versioned sites, for your patch to be used > without the risk of misinformation.
My patch makes no difference to what you term mis-information. For example, if someone adds/removes/changes version of a component's dependency AFTER a release and re-publishes the site then whats published no longer relates to the last release. The same is true for the whole site - e.g. adding a new feature and documenting it in a user guide and re-publishing. For me though, having the site reflect whats currently in trunk and not the latest release is OK and I wouldn't term it mis-information - its the latest information. I did that patch originally because Sebb kept asking for the java version to be on the dependencies page. However given his recent comments it clearly doesn't meet his requirements. I think its quite nice and adding it does no harm, but I'm less interested in it now if you just want to close it as WONT FIX, Niall > > Niall > > > >> - It is good to put the "source" and "target" version parameters for the > >> compiler plugin in the reports. > >> > >> - It is bad to put the JDK version in the reports, because it is too > >> difficult to get the correct value for it. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
