Skip to content

bridge-method-annotation should be an optional dep#378

Merged
kohsuke merged 2 commits into
hub4j:masterfrom
jglick:bridge-method-annotation
Jan 13, 2018
Merged

bridge-method-annotation should be an optional dep#378
kohsuke merged 2 commits into
hub4j:masterfrom
jglick:bridge-method-annotation

Conversation

@jglick

@jglick jglick commented Sep 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

b6e48cc introduced a hard dep on a lib which is newer than that currently bundled in core, causing problems for requireUpperBoundDeps.

@reviewbybees

Comment thread pom.xml
<groupId>com.infradna.tool</groupId>
<artifactId>bridge-method-annotation</artifactId>
<version>1.14</version>
<optional>true</optional>

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

or scope provided?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Either seem to work pretty much the same.

@ghost

ghost commented Sep 13, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request originates from a CloudBees employee. At CloudBees, we require that all pull requests be reviewed by other CloudBees employees before we seek to have the change accepted. If you want to learn more about our process please see this explanation.

@vivek

vivek commented Sep 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

LGTM 🐝

@recampbell

recampbell commented Sep 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@reviewbybees done

@kohsuke kohsuke merged commit 1e497d2 into hub4j:master Jan 13, 2018
@jglick jglick deleted the bridge-method-annotation branch January 17, 2018 16:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants