On 3/18/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I liked the m1 dependency page version [1] better than the m2 one [2]. > > The latter seems a bit noisy from the user PoV, and is mildly > > incorrect in some places, such as the dependency tree and transitivity > > of optionality. > > > > I'd like to get other opinions. > > > > > The M1 format is a bit easier to read, apart from the fact that the > different uses (compile test etc) of the jars are all mixed up. I > think the M2 layout is better for that. > <snip/>
Yup, simple but sorted in alphabetical order of artifactId. Requires focusing on last column (comments). -Rahul > Not sure I see the point of the group-id on the M2 format, and the > classifier should definitely be dropped. > > The M2 "Dependency Listings" section does not appear to be in any > particular order, and is currently not very useful owing to gaps in > the data. > > The M2 "Dependency File Details" section is strange. > What does the "Debug" column mean? Is it relevant to users? > What does the JDK rev mean? Is it compile-target or minimum Java version? > > I like the idea of the M2 "Java version" section, but it ought to be > accurate, e.g. built from manually provided data rather than whatever > happens to be in SVN at the time it is generated. > > > > > -Rahul > > > > [1] > http://people.apache.org/~rahul/commons/scxml-0.7/rc2/site/dependencies.html > > [2] http://commons.apache.org/scxml/dependencies.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
