I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of
classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added.
A new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server
support should be in 2.10.0.
We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1
without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some
regressions in 2.9.0.
On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers 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>
