FWIW, I think it is fair to say that we don’t have the same compatibility requirements for our test artifacts as we do for the stuff used at runtime. That said, we can easily say that classes used in multiple places throughout Log4j are less likely to change in an incompatible way simply due to the effort required to do it.
Ralph > On Nov 12, 2022, at 2:25 PM, Matt Sicker <m...@musigma.org> wrote: > > The fact that the test fixture stuff has been moved into log4j-core-test > instead of log4j-core:tests makes it easier to support I think. > — > Matt Sicker > >> On Nov 12, 2022, at 09:50, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> FWIW, >> >> I reply on some of the test framework like JUnit rules in work projects, it >> would be lame to have to reinvent the wheel. >> >> Gary >> >> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022, 08:41 Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: >> >>> I am concerned that users rely on test modules intended for internal usage. >>> I would rather skip all `*-test` modules during deployment. I am not >>> against shiping testing utilities for public consumption. But, AFAIC, these >>> modules were never intended for that purpose. This might bite us in the >>> long run since users would expect backward compatibility, which I expect to >>> be notably broken (for test modules!) in 3.0 release anyway. >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: <jeffrey.tho...@t-systems.com> >>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022, 15:58 >>> Subject: AW: ETA for 2.19.1? >>> To: <log4j-u...@logging.apache.org> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ralph, >>> >>> Thanks for the answer. 😊 >>> >>> Yeah not a lot of fixes (one was for me) but it seems there was a major >>> refactoring of test-code into standalone JARs... >>> >>> I just discovered the Junit hooks and have been using them out in my test >>> code - nice way of testing logging with a clean context. >>> >>> With 2.19.1 I wouldn't need to go back and change the dependencies again >>> later... 😊 But I can still get at them with the current 2.19.0 >>> "log4j-core:tests" dependency. >>> >>> Cheers, Jeff >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. November 2022 16:39 >>> An: Log4J Users List <log4j-u...@logging.apache.org> >>> Betreff: Re: ETA for 2.19.1? >>> >>> There have only been 2 issues fixed since 2.19.0 was released 2 months >>> ago. I normally wouldn’t perform a release for so few non-critical changes >>> after such a short period of time. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On Nov 10, 2022, at 1:10 AM, jeffrey.tho...@t-systems.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Hallo Log4j Team, >>>> >>>> any rough ETA on when a 2.19.1 release might take place? >>>> >>>> On one of my tickets I was told by the developer that you are all very >>> busy working on 3.x so I should give a shout out here for a little 2.x >>> love. 😊 >>>> >>>> Cheers, Jeff >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-h...@logging.apache.org >>> > > > > — > Matt Sicker >
