The reason we didn't do that initially when moving to submodules was due to backwards compatibility concerns, since users need to register an additional jar in their pig scripts.
I think the earlier we ditch the fat jar and get artifacts in maven central the better. That's really going to make this easier to use and drive adoption. --travis On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Francis Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm fixing our published maven poms so users can retrieve the submodule jars > properly in HCATALOG-543. As part of that task I had to remove the creation > and publishing of the fat hcatalog jar since it is using the same artifact > name as the parent pom. Given that we haven't had a release publishing the > fat jar in maven would it be ok to publishing? If not then I'll can probably > try using a different name for the parent pom (ie hcatalog-base) which seems > to add to the mess. > > Thoughts? > > -Francis
