8000 docs(license): list protobuf-java in THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md by minguyen9988 · Pull Request #1564 · Altinity/clickhouse-sink-connector · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

docs(license): list protobuf-java in THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md - #1564

Merged
minguyen9988 merged 1 commit into
2.11.0from
notices-protobuf-java
Oct 10, 2026
Merged

minguyen9988 merged 1 commit into
2.11.0from
notices-protobuf-java

Conversation

@minguyen9988
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Adds the one runtime component that the 2.10.3 notice in #1561 lists and the notice regenerated for 2.11.0 in #1560 is missing: com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java:3.19.6 (BSD-3-Clause). It is a compile-scope dependency of io.debezium:debezium-connector-postgres 3.1.3.Final. The lightweight POM does not exclude it and the shade plugin does not filter it, so it ships inside the lightweight connector JAR. A runtime dependency tree of the lightweight module at 2.11.0 shows it at compile scope under debezium-connector-postgres. One line, inserted in coordinate order in the Maven runtime table.

Context: #1561 could not merge into 2.11.0 because it and #1560 both add THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md. Its branch now carries the 2.11.0 version of the file, so it merges cleanly and its CI runs against 2.11.0. The earlier red build ran against an old base whose sink-connector pom declared connect-json twice. This PR carries the one entry from #1561 that 2.11.0 lacked.

Whole-Change-Verification: ran=diff review (one added table row), coordinate cross-check of the 2.10.3 and 2.11.0 notices (protobuf-java is the only runtime entry in the old notice missing from the new one; commons-compress, also missing, is excluded in both POMs), and a check of the debezium-connector-postgres 3.1.3.Final POM; result=pass

Created on behalf of the team that co-maintains this connector; maintainers own the merge.

Generated with Claude Code (https://claude.com/claude-code)

com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java:3.19.6 (BSD-3-Clause) is a compile-scope dependency of io.debezium:debezium-connector-postgres 3.1.3.Final. sink-connector-lightweight/pom.xml neither excludes it nor filters it out of the shaded JAR, so it ships in the lightweight connector JAR. The 2.10.3 notice in #1561 lists it; the notice regenerated for 2.11.0 in #1560 does not.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@minguyen9988
minguyen9988 merged commit 3fcf20d into 2.11.0 Oct 10, 2026
14 checks passed
@minguyen9988
minguyen9988 deleted the notices-protobuf-java branch October 10, 2026 05:01
minguyen9988 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2026
#1564 added the protobuf-java row to the 2.11.0 notice, which re-created the add/add conflict with this branch. The file here is now identical to the 2.11.0 version, so the PR merges cleanly.
minguyen9988 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 10, 2026
* Add THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md

* THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md: align with the notice regenerated for 2.11.0 (#1560)

This branch and #1560 both add THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md, so the PR cannot merge into 2.11.0 (add/add conflict). Take the 2.11.0 version as the base of this PR; the next commit adds the one runtime component this branch listed that the 2.11.0 notice lacks.

* THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md: align with 2.11.0 again after #1564

#1564 added the protobuf-java row to the 2.11.0 notice, which re-created the add/add conflict with this branch. The file here is now identical to the 2.11.0 version, so the PR merges cleanly.

* ci: re-run checks after #1568

The Review gates job failed on this branch because the workflow ran the check script from the PR head, which predates it; #1568 makes it use the base branch copy. No content change.

* ci: re-run checks after #1569

Lean proofs and spec validator failed here because the job checked out this branch's head, which predates formal_specs/; #1569 makes it validate the merge commit with 2.11.0. No content change.

---------

Co-authored-by: minguyen9988 <136291932+minguyen9988@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

0