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 > <[email protected] <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 < > [email protected] <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: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later > > become extinct. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >
