Sounds good to me. I'd rather get some more features in for 2.10.0 first. On 11 September 2017 at 18:33, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Sounds reasonable. > > Gary > > > > > > 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]> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
