commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [site] Dependency pages
Date Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:50:00 GMT
On 18/03/2008, Rahul Akolkar <> 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.

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]
>  [2]
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>  For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message