Cool, I should have asked the first time but I'm wanting to get this in for 0.2.4 - if you'd rather we wait please say something soon:)
--tim On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Chris Rohr <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I like this also. Thanks Tim! > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This definitely looks like a good solution. This should also get rid of the >> maven warning that we always see about using a variable in the version. >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I like this method better. This is how MRUnit handles the various >> versions >> > of Hadoop. >> > >> > Aaron >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Tim Williams <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > We currently use profiles to support building to varying versions of >> > > Hadoop and, inside the profile, we alter the "projectVersion" tag to >> > > append the profile name. This mostly works, but it leads to problems >> > > publishing snaphot artifacts to some maven repos (e.g. artifactory). >> > > >> > > I believe the correct way to get the behavior we want is to leave the >> > > projectVersion alone and use "classifier" to get the same artifact >> > > naming behavior. So, in the profile we'd set some classifier property >> > > (e.g. <hadoopClassifier>hadoop1</hadoopClassifier>), then in the jar >> > > plugin refer to the profile's property (e.g. >> > > <classifier>${hadoopClassifier}</classifier>) which will result in the >> > > classifier string being appended to the artifact name. >> > > >> > > The side effect of this is that dependencies on blur would need to >> > > specify the classifier with their dependency. >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > > >> > > --tim >> > > >> > > **NOTE: There's a longer-term "fix" for this that involves introducing >> > > our own set of interfaces that can be implemented with various hadoop >> > > "projects" - which would allow us to get rid of profiles all together >> > > and just use dependencies. I'm looking for a quicker solution than >> > > that right now. >> > > >> > >>
