Interesting, the commit for "**/*.filtered" says: "Based on patch provided...". But the patch does NOT exclude the .filtered, while the commit does. That makes it a very unclear whether the .filtered was actually so much related to MASSEMBLY-154. The unit test (change) does also not address this detail of the code change. I could see how this is all *so* sketchy that you'd just want to get rid of it. If you choose to keep it, you could change it from an undocumented feature into a documented feature, easy enough, though :)
Sander Verhagen [ san...@sanderverhagen.net ] NOTICE: my e-mail address has changed. Please remove verha...@sander.com now and start using san...@sanderverhagen.net from now on. Please update your address book. Thank you! > -----Original Message----- > From: Hervé BOUTEMY [mailto:herve.bout...@free.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:53 > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Intend to release maven-assembly-plugin 3.0.0 > > blame done and found the inital commit for the 2 excludes: > see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MASSEMBLY-777 > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le mardi 14 juillet 2015 17:19:30 Sander Verhagen a écrit : > > I'm not much of a stakeholder in this but after following the > > discussion I'm getting curious if there's any hints to why this was > > introduced? Is there a VCS "blame" to do that links to a JIRA issue of > > some kind? This could uncover at least a few (reasonable or not) use > > cases for this (admitted, seemingly strange) micro-behavior. > > > > > > > Sander Verhagen > > [ san...@sanderverhagen.net ] > > > > NOTICE: my e-mail address has changed. Please remove > > verha...@sander.com now and start using san...@sanderverhagen.net > from > > now on. Please update your address book. Thank you! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:05 > > > To: Maven Developers List > > > Subject: Re: Intend to release maven-assembly-plugin 3.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > If it’s easy to make compatible why would you not do it? > > > > > > > > > Really, this is the only interesting point of disagreement here. > > > It's easy for > _me_ to make it compatible. It's hard for readers of the assembly > > > descriptor documentation to digest and understand yet another option > > > that tweaks yet another micro-behavior. One user out of 10,000 might > > > be disturbed by the arrival of a foo.filtered file. 9,999 users out > > > of > > > 10,000 will have to wade through the extra doc. And some unknown > > > number of people will run into the (to me) bizarre current behavior. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For > > > additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > >
