(v2.2.x) Return maven-filtering to v3.3.0 from v3.3.1 #731
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The version introduced a change that causes confusing output when using 'project.baseDir' for resources path See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSHARED-1175
abelsromero
changed the title
|
No documenting in changelog for release notes since this is a change to revert back to original behavior. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)
Avoid upstream bug.
What is the goal of this pull request?
v3.3.1 introduced a change that causes confusing output when using 'project.baseDir' for resources path.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSHARED-1175
The old message when copying resouces is fine.
But the new, while less informative, omits the source after "from" in some cases.
Are there any alternative ways to implement this?
No. I don't think we are loosing anything with the revert.
Are there any implications of this pull request? Anything a user must know?
Is it related to an existing issue?
Finally, please add a corresponding entry to CHANGELOG.adoc