lhotari commented on a change in pull request #13716:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13716#discussion_r788722292
##########
File path: pom.xml
##########
@@ -576,26 +576,10 @@ flexible messaging model and an intuitive client
API.</description>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
- <artifactId>jetty-servlet</artifactId>
- <version>${jetty.version}</version>
- </dependency>
-
- <dependency>
- <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
- <artifactId>jetty-servlets</artifactId>
- <version>${jetty.version}</version>
- </dependency>
-
- <dependency>
- <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
- <artifactId>jetty-proxy</artifactId>
- <version>${jetty.version}</version>
- </dependency>
-
- <dependency>
- <groupId>org.eclipse.jetty</groupId>
- <artifactId>jetty-util</artifactId>
+ <artifactId>jetty-bom</artifactId>
Review comment:
> to settle on the newer version. I'd prefer to avoid spending time on
ripping the PR apart/rebuilding/rescanning, testing what else needs to be
downgraded etc.
You can keep the change in this PR. If you submit it separately, the PR
could be merged before this PR. If this PR gets later on reverted for some
reason, let's say that it breaks something, we can continue to keep the Jetty
change. The Jetty change might also be cherry-picked to maintenance branches,
but the Guava change might not be picked. There are multiple reasons to do
minimal PRs. I know that it's terrible now that our CI is in such bad shape
with a lot of flaky tests and long build times. We just have to keep on
improving.
@eolivelli What's your opinion about splitting the jetty-bom change to a new
PR?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
