And you'll recall my vote is for 3.0 (assuming the idea works and you
decide to go ahead with it, that is)

[Briefly, for anyone who is interested, the idea is to replace the artifact
attached to the reactor, rather than replace the file... Thus jar:jar's
output will be the responsibility of jar:jar and shade:shade can just
compare timestamps against its peevious output and be happy if it has a
no-op. people relying on the actual files in target having specific names
will have issues until they adapt (or switch the flag back to the pre-3.0
behaviour). People interacting with the repo will be unaffected.]

- Stephen
On Friday, 23 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
This would be an incompatible change, would it?
Yes, indeed, insofar as anyone who scripted to expect the shaded
version to be sitting in target under finalName would be broken

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Benson Margulies <
bimargulies@gmail.com <javascript:;>>wrote:
I want to take up a suggestion of Stephen Connolly and fix the
interactions between shade and jar by changing the default file name
of 'replacing' shaded jars. I'd like incremental jar-ing to work by
default, so I want to change the default behavior. 2.1 or 3.0?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org<javascript:;>

The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later
become extinct.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 4 of 9 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
postedNov 23, '12 at 9:39p
activeNov 24, '12 at 7:11p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase