"name":"TestDistribution"
				},
				"subprojects":[
					"scala",
					"plugins-java-base",
					"build-cache",
					"messaging",
					"war",
					"java-platform",
					"build-profile",
					"resources-gcs",
					"ear",
					"plugins-distribution",
					"build-cache-local"
				]
			},
			{
				"parallelizationMethod":{
					"name":"TestDistribution"
				},

 */

package common

enum class JvmCategory(
    override val vendor: JvmVendor,
    override val version: JvmVersion
) : Jvm {
    MIN_VERSION(JvmVendor.oracle, JvmVersion.java8),
    // Oracle doesn't provide zip JDK distribution for Windows anymore, we avoid using it
    MIN_VERSION_WINDOWS(JvmVendor.openjdk, JvmVersion.java8),
    MAX_LTS_VERSION(JvmVendor.openjdk, JvmVersion.java21),

* Checkout the [Community Resources](https://gradle.org/resources/) as well
* Join our [Slack Channel](https://gradle.com/slack-invite)


## Contributing

If you're looking to contribute to Gradle or provide a patch/pull request, you can find more info [here](https://github.com/gradle/gradle/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md).

const val individualPerformanceTestArtifactRules = """
testing/*/build/test-results-*.zip => results
testing/*/build/tmp/**/log.txt => failure-logs
testing/*/build/tmp/**/profile.log => failure-logs
testing/*/build/tmp/**/daemon-*.out.log => failure-logs
"""

// to avoid pathname too long error
fun BuildSteps.substDirOnWindows(os: Os) {
    if (os == Os.WINDOWS) {
        script {

    "path": "platforms/core-runtime/build-option",
    "unitTests": true,
    "functionalTests": false,
    "crossVersionTests": false
  },
  {
    "name": "build-profile",
    "path": "platforms/core-runtime/build-profile",
    "unitTests": true,
    "functionalTests": true,
    "crossVersionTests": false
  },
  {
    "name": "build-state",
    "path": "platforms/core-runtime/build-state",

The main logic with ADRs is to describe (architectural) decisions made:

* To provide best practices and solutions we (as the *build tool* team) want to promote.
* To avoid asking the same thing multiple times during code review.
* To explain *rejected solutions*, for now, and future development, in case they are proposed again.

This platform is agnostic to what exactly the purpose of the work is.
It might be creating an application, setting up development environments, orchestrating deployments, running simulations, etc.

This platform does not provide special support for a particular kind of automation. This is the responsibility of other platforms.

It is made up of 3 architecture modules:

<component name="InspectionProjectProfileManager">
  <profile version="1.0">
    <option name="myName" value="Gradle" />
    <inspection_tool class="21f28a86-2ba8-3048-9ce1-b6f10d4d4a12" enabled="true" level="WEAK WARNING" enabled_by_default="true" editorAttributes="INFO_ATTRIBUTES" />
    <inspection_tool class="62125fc1-a999-3cf1-9b9b-a30b4375d9bf" enabled="true" level="WARNING" enabled_by_default="true" />

* Why is this change done? What's the use case?
* For user facing features, what will the API look like?
* What test cases should it have? What could go wrong?
* How will it roughly be implemented? We'll happily provide code pointers to save you time.

We may ask you to answer these questions directly in the GitHub issue or (for large changes) in a shared Google Doc.