Yes. I don’t want to do this for 2.18.0. Ralph
> On Jun 1, 2022, at 3:14 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: > > Was there a particular reason we skipped `release-2.x`? > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 4:44 PM Apache <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is implemented on master. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On May 30, 2022, at 2:27 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
