Niall Pemberton wrote:
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.
Right, sorry for the confusion. The misinformation doesn't come from
your patch, but from the fact that it is possible to re-deploy a site,
thereby altering the content that was published at release time.
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,
I'd like to keep the issue open, because I think it is adds value to the
reports. I will however postpone it until Maven has better support for
versioned sites.
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]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
