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 <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Yes. I don’t want to do this for 2.18.0. > > Ralph > > > On Jun 1, 2022, at 3:14 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > > > Was there a particular reason we skipped `release-2.x`? > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 4:44 PM Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > >> It is implemented on master. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On May 30, 2022, at 2:27 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> 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 < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>> > >>>> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > >>>> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> > >> 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 < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com > >>> > >>>> 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 <vol...@yazi.ci> > >> 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? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
