Mind somebody sharing the last state? Is it implemented, if so how and on which branch(es)? Is it reverted? If so, totally or partially?
On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 9:53 AM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > That is OK. I have reverted your commit and am testing the build for a > second time doing it the correct way. > > Ralph > > > On May 28, 2022, at 9:14 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It worked, but I had to specify where the parent pom was in the > submodules. Are you saying I could get the same effect by importing the bom > in the parent pom? If so, that certainly seems easier. > > > > — > > Matt Sicker > > > >> On May 28, 2022, at 18:15, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Why is this necessary? I would think having the parent import the > bom/pom.xml should be enough. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On May 27, 2022, at 6:18 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> To avoid rearranging all the directories, I'm moving the parent pom to > >>> its own directory, moving the bom pom to the root, and updating the > >>> rest of the poms to know where the old parent pom now is. > >>> > >>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:08 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Agreed. I added the BOM POM later on and didn’t know of any > established patterns for modules as BOMs weren’t used extensively quite yet > at the time (and it was a Maven specific feature then, too; Spring ported > the concept to Gradle later on, and now Gradle has a native concept of the > same thing). > >>>> > >>>> — > >>>> Matt Sicker > >>>> > >>>>> On May 19, 2022, at 10:33, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Yes, that would make sense. I am sure this happened simply because > the bom pom.xml was introduced way after the first releases. > >>>> > >>>> Ralph > >>>> > >>>>> On May 18, 2022, at 11:38 PM, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Even though we provide a BOM module (`log4j-bom`), we don't consume it > >>>> > >>>> ourselves. Hence occasionally we end up publishing artifacts not > included > >>>> > >>>> in the BOM. Consuming our own BOM decreases the chances of missing out > >>>> > >>>> artifacts in BOM, though doesn't totally eliminate the chances of that > >>>> > >>>> happening. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> When I read how Maven advises to structure the BOM module > >>>> > >>>> < > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-mechanism.html#bill-of-materials-bom-poms > >, > >>>> > >>>> I understand what needs to be in the case of Log4j is the following: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> /pom.xml (`log4j-bom` module) > >>>> > >>>> /log4j-parent/pom.xml (`log4j` module importing `log4j-bom`) > >>>> > >>>> /log4j-parent/log4j-core/pom.xml (`log4j-core` module parented by > `log4j`) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Though what we have in reality is the following: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> /log4j-bom/pom.xml (`log4j-bom` module) > >>>> > >>>> /pom.xml (`log4j` module parented by `logging-parent`) > >>>> > >>>> /log4j-core/pom.xml (`log4j-core` module parented by `log4j`) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ideally we should follow the Maven-advised approach and consume from > our > >>>> > >>>> BOM parented by `logging-parent`. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> What do you think? Is my interpretation of the Maven-advised approach > >>>> > >>>> correct? > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >
