I'm not sure how much of semantic versioning we really want to adopt or have adopted in the past. This is really about managing user's expectations when they update from one version to the next.
In this case, a new module feels like a new feature. Yes, the new module adds only one class, but we can slap a "Works with Apache Tomcat" sticker on the front now, so I am leaning toward 2.10.0. Also, do we really want to end up with an log4j-appserver module as opposed to a log4j-tomcat module? What happens when we want to provide some code for JBoss, WebSphere, and so on? It seems heavy/messy to lump all of those dependencies in the one module. Especially since we have been talking splitting up the core module... Thoughts? Gary On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> 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 <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <mi...@apache.org> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> > >> > > >
