Because I am close to cutting the release and only want real bug fixes at this point.
Ralph > On Jun 1, 2022, at 11:55 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mind explaining why, please? (Assuming this is a relatively small fix as > Matt stated.) > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 5:08 PM Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
