I changed the code to always include errorprone dependency - regardless of whether we actually run the check or not. This is the simplest way to achieve consistency here. Thanks for tracking this down, Uwe.
Dawid On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:21 PM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we must either put that on some white- ääääähm exclusion-list! > > I'll fix it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
