gemmellr commented on a change in pull request #786:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/786#discussion_r816851739



##########
File path: activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
##########
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
         <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:org.jvnet.jaxb2_commons/jaxb2-basics-runtime/${jaxb-basics-version}</bundle>
         <bundle 
dependency='true'>mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.jaxb-impl/${jaxb-bundle-version}</bundle>
         
<bundle>mvn:org.apache.commons/commons-pool2/${commons-pool2-version}</bundle>
+        <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:org.apache.zookeeper/zookeeper/${zookeeper-version}</bundle>

Review comment:
       Although the original commit did remove it, putting this back for the 
actual release seems wrong. It seems surprising it would actually be related to 
the API change, so assuming it wasnt really then either omitting it here or 
adding another commit to take it back out would seem appropriate.

##########
File path: activemq-karaf/pom.xml
##########
@@ -32,17 +32,13 @@
 
   <properties>
     <xpp3-bundle-version>1.1.4c_5</xpp3-bundle-version>
+    <jodatime-bundle-version>2.9</jodatime-bundle-version>

Review comment:
       If removing the other bit this would seem unnecessary also.

##########
File path: activemq-karaf/src/main/resources/features-core.xml
##########
@@ -55,6 +56,7 @@
       <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.jasypt-spring31/1.9.2_1</bundle>
       <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:org.apache.servicemix.specs/org.apache.servicemix.specs.stax-api-1.0/${servicemix.specs.version}</bundle>
       <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.xpp3/${xpp3-bundle-version}</bundle>
+      <bundle 
dependency="true">mvn:joda-time/joda-time/${jodatime-bundle-version}</bundle>

Review comment:
       I'd wonder if this is actually needed (like the zookeeper, doesnt seem 
like it is should actually be related to the API change even if it was in the 
commit), and so again assuming it isnt would also probably omit it or add a 
second commit removing it (and related property) again too.




-- 
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]


Reply via email to