I’d be OK with not publishing log4j-appserver right now but I’d prefer to leave 
the module in but remove it from the parent pom so that it doesn’t get built or 
deployed. Then I don’t think it has to be added to the release notes even 
though it technically is still part of the source release.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

Ralph

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of 
> classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. A new 
> feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server support should be 
> in 2.10.0.
> 
> We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1 
> without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some 
> regressions in 2.9.0.
> 
> 
> On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one 
>> class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to 
>> accommodate.
>> Ralph
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
>>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
>>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
>>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
>>>>> 2.9.0?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
>>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>>>> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to