I'm OK with either direction for merges for anything between 2.x and 3.x branches for now and certainly until 3.x makes it out as a release. I won't argue for or against either.
As a semi aside, in Commons, I circumvented the whole JPMS garbage, its split module horror show for tests by letting the Moditect Maven plug in generate module info files at build time. Maybe that could be an interesting investigation for Log4j, not that I want to take the time to do it ATM. Gary On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:20 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > I plan to work on `main` until February, finalize recycler implementation, > carry out whatever improvement I can, and release `3.0.0`. > > *If you have any objections with this plan, or if you have things to do on > `main` and you cannot comply with this schedule, etc., let's discuss.* I > want to agree on a plan and timeline that works for you. > > *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x` > changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains > several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x` > from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then > releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with > Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me. Ralph even threatened to > veto all non-bugfix changes on `2.x` > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/4o9xg0o2csjnf4f372l18f8zjj9c9sy4>. I am > outnumbered and I accept the defeat. Let's release `3.0.0` from `main` and > move on. I don't want to spend time discussing this subject further. >
