I think the comment is wrong. If it's two levels deep and included, it was stuff that was originally excluded and needs to be re-excluded. I doubt there is a test for it, but it was tested in the OpenEJB project and in CXF.
Dan mihobson wrote: > > I've noticed that dependency reduced pom produced by the shade plugin > contains unnecessary exclusions. Checking the code, in ShadeMojo:825 > we have: > > //anything two levels deep that is not marked "included" > //is stuff that was excluded by the original poms, make > sure it > //remains excluded > if ( n3.getState() == DependencyNode.INCLUDED) > > The comment sounds right to me which contradicts the code. Anyone > disagree with negating the logic? > > Since this is quite a major bug, can we push out a 1.1.1 release with > this fix? The only work that's occurred on trunk since 1.1 is > MSHADE-35. > > Mark > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Shade-plugin%27s-over-zealous-exclusions-tp18462091p18477890.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
