pulled from my question on
Thinking about this more, the change to a pom type instead of an empty jar is better maven hygiene but means that downstream users who don't want to opt-in to the shaded dependencies will have to update their dependency declaration for the change.
has to change to
Is that what we want? On the positive side, it means downstream folks have to think about wether they want to keep using the client-with-third-party-dependencies or switch to the shaded client. On the negative side, we are forcing all downstream users to think about things instead of just those who are interested in the shaded client.
Happy to either clean up references to the non-pom dependency or change hadoop-client back to an empty jar. Just need to know which a committer would prefer.
(If I don't hear back one way or the other tonight, I'll decide which I think is better and put up a patch + reasoning tomorrow.)