commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all] Showing the Java Version on component sites
Date Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:21:19 GMT
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  >>  > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  >>  >>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
wrote:
>  >>  >>  >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>  >>  >>  >>  > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org>
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.

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,

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: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message