Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-19 Thread James Carman
On 3/19/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it's not easy to read; and does not appear to be in any particular order. > I believe it's showing up in the order that it's encountered in the pom.xml file. > > I never noticed it > > before, but way down at the bottom of the m2 report, it g

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-19 Thread sebb
On 19/03/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/18/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The groupId/artifactId/version/classifier are all necessary for > > > determining exactly which jar you're talking about. I don't think any > > > of those should be dropped. > > >

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-19 Thread James Carman
On 3/18/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The groupId/artifactId/version/classifier are all necessary for > > determining exactly which jar you're talking about. I don't think any > > of those should be dropped. > > > > > I've yet to see anything other than "-" as a Classifier - what p

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 3/18/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, 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

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread Rahul Akolkar
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 dependenc

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, 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 option

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread sebb
On 19/03/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/18/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not sure I see the point of the group-id on the M2 format, and the > > classifier should definitely be dropped. > > > > > The groupId/artifactId/version/classifier are all necessary for >

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread James Carman
On 3/18/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure I see the point of the group-id on the M2 format, and the > classifier should definitely be dropped. > The groupId/artifactId/version/classifier are all necessary for determining exactly which jar you're talking about. I don't think any of

Re: [site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread sebb
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 lik

[site] Dependency pages

2008-03-18 Thread Rahul Akolkar
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. -Rahul [1] http://people.apache.org/~rahul/c