It appears we can publish an artifact under org.apache.* and use relocation to have the existing jamm entry in maven redirect to our newly published artifact should we choose to go that route. I'm not an expert here and have only done a minimal amount of exploration, but that should allow us to relocate the code in-tree but still publish artifacts that were accessible at the previous groupId.
https://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-relocation.html On Wed, Dec 10, 2025, at 5:46 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > These are much better data point! Thanks!! > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Another datapoint: >> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.github.jbellis/jamm >> >> Usages for the latest version: >> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.github.jbellis/jamm/0.4.0/usages >> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 17:39, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> __ >>>> jamm seems to have a decent user base >>> I'm looking but I don't see it; curious what makes you say this. The >>> project hasn't had any commits since looks like 10/2023, new forks aren't >>> being made, new issues and PR's not being opened. >>> >>> I definitely want us to maintain the ability to cut an isolated build, >>> test, release cycle of jamm so anyone that *is *using it and had any >>> interest in contributing should be able to do so with the same ease they >>> have today. The added friction would be the small hurdle of needing to >>> clone the C* repo instead of just jamm. >>>
