As Ralph pointed out in another thread, we don't need to release 3.0 until we have a need to break API backwards compatibility. There hasn't been any need so far, so I don't see any reason to move forward to it just yet. Semantic versioning and all, too.
On 30 June 2016 at 07:20, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no idea when we would need or want to do 3.0 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:32 AM, Mikael Ståldal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Are we planning to release Log4j 3.0 soon? > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Actually, what I would like to do is drop the 1.x site off the logging >> page and just add a link to it from the new log4j page, similar to what >> http://hc.apache.org does with commons logging. In fact, we really >> should have a link to the log4j 2.3 web site (all the sites for past >> releases are still there if you know how to navigate to them) since it was >> the last log4j 2 release to support Java 6. I’d like to do the 2.6.2 >> release by the 4th so I don’t know if there will be time to fix all of that >> before then. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we can drop the "2" branding from the site as well. We could also >> put a stronger emphasis on the version site as "1.x" but a banner pointing >> to 2.x. Perhaps not a strong as the Jakarta red banner but something like: >> "For the current version of Log4j, please click here" >> >> Gary >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Regarding 3.0, I think it's going to be a bit of an image problem to get >>> there -- a little uphill battle. Right now the entire website is branded as >>> a "2" site.... to separate it from the decades long fandom of the 1.x site. >>> I am not blaming anyone for that decision. It was necessary to >>> differentiate 2.x from 1.x.... >>> >>> But it does paint the project a bit into the corner going forward. IMO, >>> you wouldn't want 3.x to be so completely different in its documentation, >>> would you? Even right now, if you go to the site, it really is "Apache >>> Log4j 2" and not simply "Apache Log4j" in the page. Do you see what I am >>> trying to say? >>> >>> I know this is unsolicited advice, but I just want to throw my opinion >>> out there to help planning the future. Before you guys try 3.0, take some >>> time to eliminate the hard barrier between 1.x/2.x in your website. Make it >>> just one so that 3.x documentation naturally fits in. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Paul >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > [email protected] > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
