On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:21 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 09/03/2008, 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. > > > > I hope we can all agree that it is important for the user to be able > to quickly discover which version of the JVM is required to run a > particular release of Commons Foo.
I would say nice-to-have rather than *important*. Things I would term *important* would be show-stoppers for a release and this IMO doesn't fit that category. Niall > Whether this is done automatically from the appropriate source, or > whether this is done by manually editting a list of versions is not > important as far as the end-user is concerned; all they care about is > that Commons Foo 1.3 will run on Java 1.3 and Commons Foo 2.0 requires > Java 7 as a minimum. > > > > > > 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]
