On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Antonio Petrelli <antonio.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/6/1 Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org>: >> Why would that require a 1.3? > > Just because it will be a complete change in organizations of jars. If > you want to stick with 1.2.x version scheme it's only a matter of > changing a version.
Actually I think we should stick with 1.2. Reasons: - there was an effort to create log4j 1.3 in the past. This version has failed and was cancelled. To my knowledge this was the time Ceki stopped development at the ASF and founded logback/slf4j. Since then 1.2 was releasing bugfix versions from time to time. It would be confusing for oldschoolers to hear about a new 1.3 version - we need to show the sign that we maintain 1.2 without breaking the code. But of course we should show the 2.0 flag. All our marketing efforts etc should go into 2.0 soon and personally I would like to avoid efforts in pushing a new version. As we do not break the code and just require new pom.xml artifacts which must be touched when a new version comes out I think 1.2.18 would be fine. Cheers Christian > Notice that I am not here to interfere with Log4j team decisions, only > to help with the build. Thank you very much! You are welcome! Cheers Christian > > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
