In that case, it's got to be 3.0, IMO.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > <[email protected]> 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]>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] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later > > become extinct. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later become extinct.
