Should we label master 3.0? Gary
On Jan 30, 2018 07:22, "Remko Popma" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > >
