-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 910
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid having two tasks producing the same file #5302
Conversation
// We don't publish this jar file, so the actual classifier value is not important. | ||
// But we should not have two tasks (jar and shadow) that produce the same file. | ||
jar { | ||
archiveClassifier.set("slim") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Taking suggestions for the classifier value :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
empty-do-not-use
? 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Considering #5251 slim doesn't look like the best name for now. If this is an intermediate jar that isn't really functional then maybe -tmp
or something else that hints that this is not supposed to be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now only to understand, why smoke test crashes...
// We don't publish this jar file, so the actual classifier value is not important. | ||
// But we should not have two tasks (jar and shadow) that produce the same file. | ||
jar { | ||
archiveClassifier.set("slim") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
empty-do-not-use
? 😄
@trask I think that #5129 was a mistake: First, What was the failure that #5129 tried to solve? I still think that #4765 was and is correct. |
I will postpone this change. Don't want to mess with release process while my brain is 90% elsewhere... |
I had issues with jmx-metrics project in contrib being slow due to the same issue so looked into this, should be superceded by #5334 |
No description provided.