I am OK with moving the Scala modules to a separate Git repository and build, given that we keep the groupId and artifactIds, so that the users will not notice any difference. It would probably be a good idea to try to keep the version numbers in sync also.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I don’t have a problem with it using the same groupId. > > Ralph > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we get a new git repo in the logging project for the Scala extensions > then? > > Also, if we use a different get repo, should we continue releasing these > log4j extras under the same group ID? > > On 3 November 2016 at 14:57, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > >> Since we won’t be using Java 8 to perform releases any time soon I >> suggest the Scala support move to a different git repo with a separate >> build. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This one will require Java 8 to compile. We'll need to update our build >> setup to support it. >> >> On 3 November 2016 at 10:14, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Do we need a new module to support Scala 2.12? >>> http://www.scala-lang.org/news/2.12.0? It does require Java I think. >>> >>> Gary >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior software developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal...@magine.com Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
