Re: Review of jackson features

[Steinar Bang <sb...@dod.no>]

Another ping on this.

Possible sources for feedback to me: direct email, email to this mailing
list (or the karaf development list if that's more appropriate), PR with
comments, comments on the github issues related to the branches.

Major issue that I know about: I've changed the dependency scope of
dependencies to make maven-bundle-plugin and karaf-maven-plugin do the
right thing.

This may have unforseen side effects for non-OSGi maven builds that rely
on transitive dependencies.  Any such build breaks are simple to fix:
just add the missing dependencies.

But people may be annoyed when automated builds break and they have to
investigate.

(but if the changes are acceptable to the jackson maintainer, I don't
think we have to worry. Also the changed dependencies are more
systematic in scope usage across the various jackson projects than
before the change)

(and if the scope changes aren't acceptable to the jackson maintainer,
there probably won't be a jackson karaf feature... at least not from
me...:-) I don't see any other practical way of doing this)

Re: Review of jackson features

[Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>]

Hi Steinar,

My apologizes, I forgot again :/

Can you ping me using direct email or Slack, it’s probably faster.

I will take a look tomorrow anyway.

Sorry again,
Regards
JB

> Le 11 mars 2020 à 17:57, Steinar Bang <sb...@dod.no> a écrit :
> 
> Another ping on this.
> 
> Possible sources for feedback to me: direct email, email to this mailing
> list (or the karaf development list if that's more appropriate), PR with
> comments, comments on the github issues related to the branches.
> 
> Major issue that I know about: I've changed the dependency scope of
> dependencies to make maven-bundle-plugin and karaf-maven-plugin do the
> right thing.
> 
> This may have unforseen side effects for non-OSGi maven builds that rely
> on transitive dependencies.  Any such build breaks are simple to fix:
> just add the missing dependencies.
> 
> But people may be annoyed when automated builds break and they have to
> investigate.
> 
> (but if the changes are acceptable to the jackson maintainer, I don't
> think we have to worry. Also the changed dependencies are more
> systematic in scope usage across the various jackson projects than
> before the change)
> 
> (and if the scope changes aren't acceptable to the jackson maintainer,
> there probably won't be a jackson karaf feature... at least not from
> me...:-) I don't see any other practical way of doing this)
>