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.
Niall
This is related to publishing versioned sites that I touched upon in
another mail.
>
> BeanUtils is an example of the same source/target versions:
> http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/dependencies.html
> http://commons.apache.org/beanutils/project-summary.html
>
> My preference is to have it on the dependencies page, because I think
> people are more likely to look there - but perhaps both places would
> be good. I haven't had any feedback since I submitted the second
> pacth, so If you think its a good idea for commons then it would be
> good to vote for that JIRA bug:
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPIR-80
>
> Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
