I think it’s possible to search for a commit hash in IntelliJ, but here is a github link: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/commit/21bc3aa3bf8d8a043459c6a58e774b82a617a058
LOG4J2-2225 provide alias for SystemMillisClock so the fully qualifie… …d class name doesn't need to be published (This should be included, the next commit should be excluded. ) (Shameless plug) Every java main() method deserves http://picocli.info > On Jan 30, 2018, at 12:51, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > I agree in principal but I am having a hard time figuring out which commit > that was. > > Ralph > >> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Any feedback on the idea to cut a branch from commit 21bc3aa and release >> 2.11 from that branch? >> >> In the release notes we can announce that the next release will have >> internal classes moved and packages renamed so future releases will have >> binary compatibility issues. >> >> To me it makes sense to therefore name the next release 3.0 to signal this >> incompatibility to users. >> >> Having a 3.0 release doesn’t necessarily mean we immediately start >> requiring Java 8. That can could come in a subsequent release. >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:26 Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Ralph. >>> We can still do this. >>> Maybe we should start a 2.11 branch from an earlier commit, from before we >>> started to rename packages, and cut a 2.11 release from that branch? >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If are going to call it 3.0 I would have liked to cut a release before >>>> all this modularization work and then created a branch so we could maintain >>>> it if necessary. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If we are going to make breaking changes in this release it may be >>>> wise to >>>>>> also do any package renaming in this release to keep the disruption >>>> limited >>>>>> to a single release instead of multiple. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically, I propose we take this release to do all package >>>> renaming to >>>>>> clarify the difference between classes that are "internal" to Log4j >>>> core >>>>>> and should not be depended on, and packages that we intend to export >>>> when >>>>>> Log4j core becomes a Java 9 module. >>>>>> >>>>>> This likely means introducing new "internal" packages and moving >>>> classes >>>>>> and interfaces into these new packages. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe this is in line with what Matt proposed a while ago as the >>>> plugin >>>>>> API for core. All classes and interfaces that are not in an >>>>>> "internal" package are safe to depend on and we commit to preserving >>>> binary >>>>>> compatibility for such packages. Everything in a package with >>>> "internal" in >>>>>> the name is subject to change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we aim to complete this work before the 2.11 release? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's OK with me, and at this point, even though log4j-core is not >>>>> log4j-api, I would consider calling the release 3.0. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >
