There's a thread on members@ about release trains. While we don't currently do that, it would certainly be nice if we could. I think such a pattern is blocked still by a cumbersome release process.
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 14:51, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Provided that we can still use Java 8 or similar during the release > process (probably need something like the animal sniffer plugin to ensure > newer APIs aren't used), it shouldn't be too bad. I'd be in support of > having a 2.3.x branch for security fixes and bug fixes. I would not be in > support of adding new features to 2.3.x as that would be confusing, plus > who is still making new features in Java 6 anyways? Even Spring Framework > migrated to Java 8 as a baseline, and they've been incredibly conservative > about backwards compatibility for quite some time now. > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 11:34, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can help with validating an RC vote but I really more interested in Java >> 8 and beyond. >> >> Bringing this in a 2.3.x branch and not in 2.x-release if applicable might >> be quite confusing. >> >> Gary >> >> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 10:14 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >> >> > A request to integrate https://gitlab.com/thiesw/log4j2-Java6-extras < >> > https://gitlab.com/thiesw/log4j2-Java6-extras> was made in one of the >> > pull requests. This project targets Log4j 2.3. According to Nexus 13% >> of >> > the downloads last month were for 2.3. So the questions are: >> > 1. Do we want to incorporate this enhancement against 2.3? >> > 2. Do we want to include it against master or release-2.x? >> > 3. Do we want to fork the repo into an ASF repo and take ownership as a >> > separate component? >> > 4. If we include it against 2.3 are there other bug fixes that should be >> > applied? I believe there might have been a security issue that was >> fixed in >> > a later release so that would have to be incorporated. >> > 5. Can we still perform a release against Java 6? I think my machine is >> > still set up for it but it has been a long time since I tried. >> > >> > If we do not want this component I have told the author that he can’t >> keep >> > the package names as they are but I would hate to have him rename them >> if >> > we would be taking it. >> > >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
