Closed ToBeReplaced closed 10 years ago
Is anything wrong with this PR? It would be nice to quiet this spam:
(WARNING!!! version ranges found for:) ([com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0"] -> [org.clojars.trptcolin/sjacket "0.1.0.6"] -> [org.clojure/clojure "[1.3.0,)"] Consider using [com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0" :exclusions [org.clojure/clojure]].) ([com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0"] -> [org.clojars.trptcolin/sjacket "0.1.0.6"] -> [net.cgrand/regex "1.1.0"] -> [org.clojure/clojure "[1.2.0,)"] Consider using [com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0" :exclusions [org.clojure/clojure]].) ([com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0"] -> [org.clojars.trptcolin/sjacket "0.1.0.6"] -> [net.cgrand/parsley "0.9.1"] -> [org.clojure/clojure "[1.2.0,)"] Consider using [com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0" :exclusions [org.clojure/clojure]].) ([com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0"] -> [org.clojars.trptcolin/sjacket "0.1.0.6"] -> [net.cgrand/parsley "0.9.1"] -> [net.cgrand/regex "1.1.0"] -> [org.clojure/clojure "[1.2.0,)"] Consider using [com.keminglabs/cljx "0.4.0" :exclusions [org.clojure/clojure]].) nil
This patch references an older version of sjacket. #44 achieves the same ends.
Is anything wrong with this PR? It would be nice to quiet this spam: