Hello, Not that I want to hijack this thread but considering that the move is from a fix release to a minor release I wonder about the use of <packaging>jlink</packaging>.
For a multi-module project having this packaging option is not much of a problem, as if the project produces more than one artifact (such as a shaded JAR, jar with classpath, assemble/assembler, jlink) then an extra module can perform the jlink packaging. However for single project builds the <packaging>jlink</packaging> would prevent other packaging options, wouldn't it? Say I want to have single JAR, shaded JAR, and jlink image on the same single project build. Is it possible to do so? If it is, then I missed it in the docs. It it's not allowed then I'd suggest if JAR packaging is also enabled when <packaging>jlink</packaging> is defined, so keep them both active. Then remove <packaging>jlink</packaging> in 4.0.0. As reference the Helidon maven plugin supports creating jlink and Graal native images while keeping <packaging>jar</packaging> https://github.com/oracle/helidon-build-tools/tree/master/helidon-maven-plugin All this being said, this comment is to weight in a possible change that would merit a minor release instead of a fix release. Cheers, Andres ------------------------------------------- Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast http://andresalmiray.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:38 PM Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > looking at the issues already solved and soon-be-solved, the next release > feels much more like a 3.1.0 release than a 3.0.1 (bugfix) release [1]. > > If you agree, I would like to update the git repository to 3.1.0 and create > a 3.0.x branch from the last release, if needed. > > I would also like to request some help with the documentation [2]. > Currently it says that an extra 'dist' project is needed, but with the > introduction of classifiers (or moving the main jar away using a > classifier), this does not hold true anymore. > > Third, I would like to move MJLINK-39 [3] to a 3.2.0 release (or even > "won’t fix"), as the 'vm' option only applies to 32bit vms and is not even > documented anymore – only 'jlink --plugin-list' shows its usage. > > Summary: > 4 issues left, of which are: > 1 with PR to be merged (update plexus-utils) > 1 with PR half-way done (--add-options for launcher script) > 1 documentation to be done > 1 to be moved away or "wont’t fix". > > Thanks in advance, > Ben > > [1] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-60?jql=project%20%3D%20MJLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.1 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-49 > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-39 >
