On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Is that something thats in progress - or just on a wish list for the future? Niall > > 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]
