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". Niall > > 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]
