rangareddy commented on code in PR #19492:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hudi/pull/19492#discussion_r3704259419
##########
hudi-io/pom.xml:
##########
@@ -116,6 +116,12 @@
<goal>shade</goal>
</goals>
<configuration>
+ <!-- Must stay false here, and only here. This is the one module
using
Review Comment:
Trimmed in the latest commit — six lines to four, and the defensive phrasing
is gone:
```xml
<!-- shadedArtifactAttached publishes the shaded jar under the "shaded"
classifier while the
primary jar stays unshaded, so the published POM must still declare
protobuf-java;
reducing it would strip a real runtime dependency. False is correct iff
the shaded jar is
attached under a classifier, which is why the packaging bundles differ.
-->
```
I kept a short form of the "why the bundles differ" clause rather than
cutting to the invariant alone, because that part is what #19466 specifically
asked the comment to carry — its wording was "This belongs as a comment in
`hudi-io/pom.xml` so it does not get 'fixed' by someone reading #19433 later."
Your point about the tone was right though; one clause stating that the rule is
classifier-conditional does that job without sounding like an argument with a
future reader.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
