I created branch "release-2.x". On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:45 PM, Apache <[email protected]> wrote:
> That spot looks ok to me. Please make the branch > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:43 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you want I can create a “release-2.11” or “release-2.x” branch from > that commit. > > > > > > > >> On Jan 30, 2018, at 14:17, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>>> 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 <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Remko Popma < > [email protected]> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > >
