Sounds reasonable to me given public support for 7 ended over four years ago. It's probably worth a preemptive email to the users list so we don't surprise anyone.
-ck On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 19:56, Matt Sicker wrote: > I’d be alright with that as well. 3.0 is a good place for modularization > and API cleanup. > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 18:55, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No objections from me. > > Remko > > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2019, at 8:48, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > I implemented a logging builder pattern in the Log4j API on the master > > branch. I was able to do that in a backward compatible manner by using Java > > 8 default methods. Although I could implement those default methods in > > AbstractLogger in the release-2.x branch, the Logger interface would no > > longer be backward compatible. In doing some investigation I found > > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018 < > > https://www.baeldung.com/java-in-2018> which showed Java 7 usage to be > > down to about 5%. > > > > > > I still don’t see us releasing 3.0 very soon because more modularization > > work is required. So I am now wondering if we should just make the minimum > > requirement for new Log4j 2 2.x releases to be Java 8. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Ralph > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >
