Niall Pemberton wrote:
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?
Currently it is not a piece of software, but rather a configuration best
practice (hopefully). We're currently trying it out over in Maven land.
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]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
