> On Feb. 17, 2015, 11:49 a.m., Veena Basavaraj wrote: > > Few comments. > > > > Patch is good. > > 1. Please update steps in the JIRA or RB on how this was discovered or was > > it a serendepity:), so future reviews and testing of sqoop releases can use > > this methodology and not have to wait until multiple RCs, ( In future we > > could also automate the same methodology for quicker resolution) > > 2. There are 3 separate issues, 1 and 2 are unreleated, though 1 and 3 are > > related, wondered if separate issues would have been nice. > > Jarek Cecho wrote: > 1. I'm afraid that serendepity is the right answer here. I was looking > for all the jars that we are shipping and accidentally noticed that we're > shipping stuff that we should not. > 2. You're right that are unrelated to some extent. I'm happy to cut them > if needed.
would be nice if we split it up #2. and also update license since this release atleast I updated the LICENSE.txt with relevant jars and licenses that were added since the last 1.99.4 release. For the previous ones, happy to create a new one, so we can audit the rest of the jars and update licensens ( so this is not a blocker for older jars ) to track testing of #1, created a new JIRA as we discussed offline. - Veena ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31127/#review72768 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 17, 2015, 11:57 a.m., Jarek Cecho wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/31127/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 17, 2015, 11:57 a.m.) > > > Review request for Sqoop. > > > Bugs: SQOOP-2109 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-2109 > > > Repository: sqoop-sqoop2 > > > Description > ------- > > There has been several things that I had to fix in order to get this right: > > * Shell packaging was pulling in all dependencies regardless of their scope, > I had to manually switch it from "test" to "runtime" > * Common was directly depending on common-test without properly specifying > testing scope > * Security module was completely missing dependency on com.bueust (that > wasn't problem because 2) has pulled it in transitively) > > > Diffs > ----- > > common/pom.xml 9e593b2 > pom.xml d48389e > security/pom.xml e4e61cc > shell/pom.xml e48c86a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31127/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > I've run the packaging target and the shell/lib directory size decreased from > 46MB to 28MB (almost a half!), excluding all the testing dependencies. > > > Thanks, > > Jarek Cecho > >
