Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

I've done a couple releases in this project so far (a Log4j and Logging
Parent release), so it shouldn't be too hard. I'm thinking we need to copy
over the log4j-distribution stuff so we can create source and binary
assemblies for uploading to apache.org as well.

On 8 March 2017 at 11:55, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:

> I have never made any Apache release before, so it's probably good if
> someone more experienced does it the first time. So I would be grateful if
> Matt could do it.
>
> I can maybe do it the next time.
>
> On Mar 8, 2017 5:43 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>
>> If you don't have time to do it, Mikael, I could probably take care of
>> it. I'm planning on doing some Commons releases starting this week anyways,
>> and the process is fairly similar.
>>
>> On 8 March 2017 at 06:41, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, go for it. You can look at the Log4J release guide although some
>>> steps won't apply.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:32 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>>
>>> I won't be able to do it. :-) Why don't you give it a shot? I suspect
>>> you will be driving future changes often so it would be good if you can
>>> release such changes without having to wait for others to make time.
>>>
>>> Remko
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 18:45, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I have updated the log4j-scala repo to bump version to 11.0, and
>>> note in README about independent versioning. It should now be ready for
>>> release. Who will do the release?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes. Scala should be released asap and the site manually modified to
 point to it. We would then modify the log4j source to permanently point
 there.

 Ralph

 On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Ralph pointed out that we can't make a release of the main repo without
 the scala modules until there is a release of the scala modules on their
 own. Otherwise, there'd be a regression in the main repo by removing
 modules that were there before.

 On 7 March 2017 at 10:54, Remko Popma  wrote:

> No objection from me to release log4j-scala.
>
> Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j
> upgrade independently?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next
> release of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the 
> Scala
> modules from main repo now?
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way
>> everyone implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we
>> already have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled 
>> by
>> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should 
>> generally
>> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new
>> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic
>> versioning properly, too.
>>
>> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should
>>> be independent in both ways, right?
>>>
>>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language
>>> covered already.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle
 any combination of the following:
 * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala 
 modules
 every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is 
 that
 once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
 automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
 a log4j-scala release separately.
 * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
 versions? (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala
 module version)
 * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules,
 independent of the above


 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version
 to 11.0.

 On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

I have never made any Apache release before, so it's probably good if
someone more experienced does it the first time. So I would be grateful if
Matt could do it.

I can maybe do it the next time.

On Mar 8, 2017 5:43 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

> If you don't have time to do it, Mikael, I could probably take care of it.
> I'm planning on doing some Commons releases starting this week anyways, and
> the process is fairly similar.
>
> On 8 March 2017 at 06:41, Apache  wrote:
>
>> Yes, go for it. You can look at the Log4J release guide although some
>> steps won't apply.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 5:32 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>
>> I won't be able to do it. :-) Why don't you give it a shot? I suspect you
>> will be driving future changes often so it would be good if you can release
>> such changes without having to wait for others to make time.
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 18:45, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I have updated the log4j-scala repo to bump version to 11.0, and note
>> in README about independent versioning. It should now be ready for release.
>> Who will do the release?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Scala should be released asap and the site manually modified to
>>> point to it. We would then modify the log4j source to permanently point
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Ralph pointed out that we can't make a release of the main repo without
>>> the scala modules until there is a release of the scala modules on their
>>> own. Otherwise, there'd be a regression in the main repo by removing
>>> modules that were there before.
>>>
>>> On 7 March 2017 at 10:54, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>>
 No objection from me to release log4j-scala.

 Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j
 upgrade independently?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next
 release of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala
 modules from main repo now?

 On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way
> everyone implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we
> already have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled 
> by
> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should 
> generally
> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new
> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic
> versioning properly, too.
>
> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should
>> be independent in both ways, right?
>>
>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language
>> covered already.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle
>>> any combination of the following:
>>> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala 
>>> modules
>>> every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is 
>>> that
>>> once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
>>> automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
>>> a log4j-scala release separately.
>>> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
>>> versions? (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala
>>> module version)
>>> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules,
>>> independent of the above
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to
>>> 11.0.
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>>>
 If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change
 packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance 
 because
 they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so 
 I
 had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a 
 duplicate and
 excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments 
 :P).

 On 1 March 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Ralph Goers]

Yes. Scala should be released asap and the site manually modified to point to 
it. We would then modify the log4j source to permanently point there.

Ralph

> On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Ralph pointed out that we can't make a release of the main repo without the 
> scala modules until there is a release of the scala modules on their own. 
> Otherwise, there'd be a regression in the main repo by removing modules that 
> were there before.
> 
> On 7 March 2017 at 10:54, Remko Popma  > wrote:
> No objection from me to release log4j-scala. 
> 
> Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j upgrade 
> independently?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
> 
>> Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next release 
>> of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala modules 
>> from main repo now?
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way everyone 
>> implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we already 
>> have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by 
>> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should generally 
>> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new 
>> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic 
>> versioning properly, too.
>> 
>> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal > > wrote:
>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be 
>> independent in both ways, right?
>> 
>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language covered 
>> already.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any 
>> combination of the following:
>> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules 
>> every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that 
>> once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released 
>> automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for a 
>> log4j-scala release separately. 
>> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language versions? 
>> (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala module version)
>> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules, independent of 
>> the above 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.
>>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker" >> > wrote:
>>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change packages, 
>>> too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because they 
>>> changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I had two 
>>> copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and 
>>> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>>> 
>>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would suggest 
>>> changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote:
 
 OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
 
 On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache > wrote:
 I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
 
 Ralph
 
 On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote:
 
> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site 
> from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as 
> delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the 
> site integrated.
> 
> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can 
> go ahead and release log4j-scala.
> 
> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that 
> will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning 
> as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

Ralph pointed out that we can't make a release of the main repo without the
scala modules until there is a release of the scala modules on their own.
Otherwise, there'd be a regression in the main repo by removing modules
that were there before.

On 7 March 2017 at 10:54, Remko Popma  wrote:

> No objection from me to release log4j-scala.
>
> Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j upgrade
> independently?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
>
> Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next release
> of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala modules
> from main repo now?
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way
>> everyone implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we
>> already have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by
>> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should generally
>> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new
>> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic
>> versioning properly, too.
>>
>> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be
>>> independent in both ways, right?
>>>
>>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language
>>> covered already.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any
 combination of the following:
 * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules
 every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that
 once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
 automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
 a log4j-scala release separately.
 * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
 versions? (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala
 module version)
 * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules,
 independent of the above


 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to
 11.0.

 On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change
> packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because
> they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I
> had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate 
> and
> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>
> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would
>> suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal <
>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the
>>> site from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of 
>>> log4j-scala
>>> as delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the
>>> site integrated.
>>>
>>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we
>>> can go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>>>
>>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala,
>>> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same
>>> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, 
>>> and I
>>> think we want to keep that in sync.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires
 Java 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we
 separated the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo 
 from
 taking forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus,

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Remko Popma]

No objection from me to release log4j-scala. 

Do you have a versioning scheme that lets log4j-scala and log4j upgrade 
independently?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:42, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next release of 
> main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala modules from 
> main repo now?
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way everyone 
>> implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we already 
>> have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by 
>> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should generally 
>> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new 
>> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic 
>> versioning properly, too.
>> 
>>> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
>>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be 
>>> independent in both ways, right?
>>> 
>>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language covered 
>>> already.
>>> 
 On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:
 Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any 
 combination of the following:
 * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala 
 modules every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding 
 is that once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released 
 automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for a 
 log4j-scala release separately. 
 * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language versions? 
 (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala module 
 version)
 * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules, independent 
 of the above 
 
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change 
>> packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance 
>> because they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same 
>> API, so I had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a 
>> duplicate and excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi 
>> environments :P).
>> 
>>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers  
>>> wrote:
>>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would 
>>> suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal  
 wrote:
 
 OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
 
 On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache  
 wrote:
> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the 
>> site from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of 
>> log4j-scala as delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if 
>> we cannot get the site integrated.
>> 
>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we 
>> can go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, 
>> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same 
>> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on 
>> log4j-api, and I think we want to keep that in sync.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  
>>> wrote:
>>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires 
>>> Java 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so 
>>> we separated the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j 
>>> repo from taking forever to build and release which can help the 
>>> RERO idea. Plus, these non-core modules don't change nearly as 
>>> often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they don't really need new 
>>> releases all that often.
>>> 
 On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

Can we release log4j-scala now? Or to we have to wait for the next release
of main repo with Scala modules removed? Should we remove the Scala modules
from main repo now?

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way everyone
> implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we already
> have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by
> specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should generally
> be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new
> features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic
> versioning properly, too.
>
> On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
>> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be
>> independent in both ways, right?
>>
>> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language
>> covered already.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any
>>> combination of the following:
>>> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules
>>> every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that
>>> once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
>>> automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
>>> a log4j-scala release separately.
>>> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
>>> versions? (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala
>>> module version)
>>> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules,
>>> independent of the above
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to
>>> 11.0.
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>>>
 If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change
 packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because
 they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I
 had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and
 excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).

 On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would
> suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the
>> site from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala
>> as delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the
>> site integrated.
>>
>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we
>> can go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala,
>> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same
>> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, 
>> and I
>> think we want to keep that in sync.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires
>>> Java 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we
>>> separated the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo 
>>> from
>>> taking forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus,
>>> these non-core modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or
>>> log4j-api, so they don't really need new releases all that often.
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 To be honest I still don't understand

 * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
 * how different repos fit into that vision
 * what different websites we are planning to create to give users
 access to these different modules
 * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or
 projects
 * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

The Scala language versions is already done the same standard way everyone
implements Scala libraries (hence the strange naming scheme we already
have). I'd imagine that the versions can be completely decoupled by
specifying a minimum Log4j API version it requires (though should generally
be whatever the latest was at release) and bumping its own version as new
features or bugfixes are added. I'd like to see that follow semantic
versioning properly, too.

On 3 March 2017 at 06:15, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:

> I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be
> independent in both ways, right?
>
> I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language covered
> already.
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma 
> wrote:
>
>> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any
>> combination of the following:
>> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules
>> every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that
>> once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
>> automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
>> a log4j-scala release separately.
>> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language
>> versions? (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala
>> module version)
>> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules, independent
>> of the above
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>>
>>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change
>>> packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because
>>> they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I
>>> had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and
>>> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>>>
>>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would
 suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.

 Ralph

 On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.

 On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache 
 wrote:

> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the
> site from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala
> as delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the
> site integrated.
>
> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we
> can go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>
> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala,
> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same
> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and 
> I
> think we want to keep that in sync.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java
>> 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we 
>> separated
>> the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking
>> forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these
>> non-core modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api,
>> so they don't really need new releases all that often.
>>
>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest I still don't understand
>>>
>>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
>>> * how different repos fit into that vision
>>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users
>>> access to these different modules
>>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or
>>> projects
>>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>>>
>>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules
>>> but is about the whole splitting up the release.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think
>>> there's already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams 
>>> there
>>> would be very useful.)
>>>
>>> Remko

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

I guess the idea is that releases of Log4j 2 and log4j-scala should be
independent in both ways, right?

I think I have coordination between log4j-scala and Scala language covered
already.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Remko Popma  wrote:

> Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any
> combination of the following:
> * log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules
> every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that
> once they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released
> automatically with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for
> a log4j-scala release separately.
> * Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language versions?
> (I guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala module
> version)
> * log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules, independent
> of the above
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
>
> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.
>
> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>
>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change
>> packages, too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because
>> they changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I
>> had two copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and
>> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>>
>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>>
>>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would
>>> suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.

 Ralph

 On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site
 from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as
 delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
 integrated.

 But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we
 can go ahead and release log4j-scala.

 I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala,
 that will be confusing since we have already started with the same
 versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I
 think we want to keep that in sync.


 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java
> 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated
> the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking
> forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these
> non-core modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api,
> so they don't really need new releases all that often.
>
> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma 
> wrote:
>
>> To be honest I still don't understand
>>
>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
>> * how different repos fit into that vision
>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users
>> access to these different modules
>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>>
>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but
>> is about the whole splitting up the release.
>>
>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think
>> there's already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams 
>> there
>> would be very useful.)
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
>>> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers <
>>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
>>> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until 
>>> they
>>> are released.
>>>
>>> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
>>> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Remko Popma]

Mikael, you probably need to plan your versioning scheme to handle any 
combination of the following:
* log4j 2 releases: do you want to do a release for the log4j-scala modules 
every time? E.g., when we go from 2.8.1 to 2.8.2? My understanding is that once 
they are decoupled, the log4j-scala modules won't be released automatically 
with log4j anymore, someone needs to do the work for a log4j-scala release 
separately. 
* Scala releases: how do you want to sync up with Scala language versions? (I 
guess include major Scala version in the log4j-scala module version)
* log4j-scala module versions: enhancements to these modules, independent of 
the above 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:10, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.
> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:
>>> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change packages, 
>>> too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because they 
>>> changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I had two 
>>> copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and 
>>> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>>> 
>>> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would suggest 
>>> changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal  
 wrote:
 
 OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
 
 On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache  wrote:
> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site 
>> from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as 
>> delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the 
>> site integrated.
>> 
>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can 
>> go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, 
>> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same 
>> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, 
>> and I think we want to keep that in sync.
>> 
>> 
 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
 One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 
 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we 
 separated the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo 
 from taking forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. 
 Plus, these non-core modules don't change nearly as often as 
 log4j-core or log4j-api, so they don't really need new releases all 
 that often.
 
 On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  
 wrote:
 To be honest I still don't understand 
 
 * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve 
 * how different repos fit into that vision 
 * what different websites we are planning to create to give users 
 access to these different modules 
 * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects 
 * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above 
 
 My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but 
 is about the whole splitting up the release. 
 
 Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think 
 there's already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams 
 there would be very useful.)
 
 Remko
 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala 
> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
> 
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
>  wrote:
> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a 
> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until 
> they are released.
> 
> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j 
> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or 
> whatever.
> 
> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can 
> modify 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

I would like to keep package and artifact names, and bump version to 11.0.

On Mar 1, 2017 4:04 PM, "Matt Sicker"  wrote:

> If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change packages,
> too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because they
> changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I had two
> copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and
> excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).
>
> On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers  wrote:
>
>> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would
>> suggest changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site
>>> from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as
>>> delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
>>> integrated.
>>>
>>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can
>>> go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>>>
>>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala,
>>> that will be confusing since we have already started with the same
>>> versioning as Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I
>>> think we want to keep that in sync.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java
 8, but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated
 the repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking
 forever to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these
 non-core modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api,
 so they don't really need new releases all that often.

 On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma 
 wrote:

> To be honest I still don't understand
>
> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
> * how different repos fit into that vision
> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users
> access to these different modules
> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>
> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but
> is about the whole splitting up the release.
>
> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think
> there's already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams 
> there
> would be very useful.)
>
> Remko
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
>> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>>
>> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
>> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
>> are released.
>>
>> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
>> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or 
>> whatever.
>>
>> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can
>> modify the web site to point to it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
>> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three 
>> artifacts
>> will already exist.
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>>
>> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal <
>> mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next
>> release.
>>
>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
>> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
>> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala 
>> repo
>> has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>>
>> On Sat, 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

If you change artifact ids, it's generally a good idea to change packages,
too. I've had issues in the past with Feign for instance because they
changed groupId/artifactId at one point but kept the same API, so I had two
copies on the classpath until I found out there was a duplicate and
excluded them (though admittedly not a problem in OSGi environments :P).

On 1 March 2017 at 07:47, Ralph Goers  wrote:

> You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would suggest
> changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache  wrote:
>
>> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site
>> from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as
>> delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
>> integrated.
>>
>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can
>> go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that
>> will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning as
>> Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we want
>> to keep that in sync.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8,
>>> but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the
>>> repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever
>>> to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core
>>> modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they
>>> don't really need new releases all that often.
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>>
 To be honest I still don't understand

 * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
 * how different repos fit into that vision
 * what different websites we are planning to create to give users
 access to these different modules
 * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
 * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above

 My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but
 is about the whole splitting up the release.

 Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's
 already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would
 be very useful.)

 Remko

 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
> are released.
>
> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or 
> whatever.
>
> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify
> the web site to point to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three 
> artifacts
> will already exist.
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal <
> mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote:
>
> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next
> release.
>
> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo
> has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1
> it is, then?
>
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache 
> wrote:
>
> Note that the link in 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Ralph Goers]

You can do that, but that will probably confuse users too. I would suggest 
changing the artifactId and then start at either 1.0 or 2.0.

Ralph

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache  > wrote:
> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal  > wrote:
> 
>> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site from 
>> log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as delayed, 
>> since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site integrated.
>> 
>> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can go 
>> ahead and release log4j-scala.
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that 
>> will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning as 
>> Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we want 
>> to keep that in sync.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8, but 
>> we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the 
>> repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever 
>> to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core 
>> modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they 
>> don't really need new releases all that often.
>> 
>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma > > wrote:
>> To be honest I still don't understand 
>> 
>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve 
>> * how different repos fit into that vision 
>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users access to 
>> these different modules 
>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects 
>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above 
>> 
>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is 
>> about the whole splitting up the release. 
>> 
>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's 
>> already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would be 
>> very useful.)
>> 
>> Remko
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala APIs. 
>> Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>> 
>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers > > wrote:
>> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a 
>> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they 
>> are released.
>> 
>> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j versions. 
>> Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>> 
>> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify the 
>> web site to point to it.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it harder 
>>> to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts will 
>>> already exist.
>>> 
>>> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers >> > wrote:
>>> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote:
 
 I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
 
 I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought 
 that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to 
 the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been 
 delayed and I start to get disappointed.
 
 On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it 
 is, then?
 
 On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache > wrote:
 Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the 
 log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

OK, but then at least we have to start with a version > 2.8.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Apache  wrote:

> I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site
> from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as
> delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
> integrated.
>
> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can
> go ahead and release log4j-scala.
>
> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that
> will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning as
> Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we want
> to keep that in sync.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8,
>> but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the
>> repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever
>> to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core
>> modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they
>> don't really need new releases all that often.
>>
>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest I still don't understand
>>>
>>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
>>> * how different repos fit into that vision
>>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users access
>>> to these different modules
>>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
>>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>>>
>>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is
>>> about the whole splitting up the release.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's
>>> already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would
>>> be very useful.)
>>>
>>> Remko
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
 APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.

 On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

 If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
 catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
 are released.

 This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
 versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.

 Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify
 the web site to point to it.

 Ralph

 On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
 harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts
 will already exist.

 On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:

 Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?

 Ralph

 On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
 wrote:

 I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.

 I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
 thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
 put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo
 has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.

 On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1
 it is, then?

 On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache 
 wrote:

 Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that
 the log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache 
 wrote:

 Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release
 manager for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have
 to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
 log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
 the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
 independently of log4j.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 The site repository is laid out like this:

 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

I guarantee if you try to keep the same versioning you will regret it.

Ralph

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Mikael Ståldal  wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site from 
> log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as delayed, 
> since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site integrated.
> 
> But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can go 
> ahead and release log4j-scala.
> 
> I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that 
> will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning as 
> Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we want 
> to keep that in sync.
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8, but 
>> we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the 
>> repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever 
>> to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core 
>> modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they 
>> don't really need new releases all that often.
>> 
>>> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>> To be honest I still don't understand 
>>> 
>>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve 
>>> * how different repos fit into that vision 
>>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users access to 
>>> these different modules 
>>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects 
>>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above 
>>> 
>>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is 
>>> about the whole splitting up the release. 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's 
>>> already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would 
>>> be very useful.)
>>> 
>>> Remko
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
 I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala APIs. 
 Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
 
 On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers  
 wrote:
 If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a 
 catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they 
 are released.
 
 This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j 
 versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
 
 Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify the 
 web site to point to it.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it 
> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three 
> artifacts will already exist.
> 
> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers  
> wrote:
> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>> 
>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I 
>> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have 
>> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala 
>> repo has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it 
>> is, then?
>> 
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the 
>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release 
>>> manager for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would 
>>> have to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - 
>>> as well as log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not 
>>> doable. Deploying the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier 
>>> to maintain independently of log4j.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
 
 The site repository is laid out like this:
 
 log4j/2.x/ 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

I was under the impression that we were not ready to integrate the site
from log4j-scala. That's why I considered the release of log4j-scala as
delayed, since there is no point of releasing it if we cannot get the site
integrated.

But now when Ralph says he's ready to integrate the site, I guess we can go
ahead and release log4j-scala.

I don't like the idea of having separate versioning for log4j-scala, that
will be confusing since we have already started with the same versioning as
Log4j. Log4j-scala also have a dependency on log4j-api, and I think we want
to keep that in sync.


On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8,
> but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the
> repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever
> to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core
> modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they
> don't really need new releases all that often.
>
> On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  wrote:
>
>> To be honest I still don't understand
>>
>> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
>> * how different repos fit into that vision
>> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users access
>> to these different modules
>> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
>> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>>
>> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is
>> about the whole splitting up the release.
>>
>> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's
>> already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would
>> be very useful.)
>>
>> Remko
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
>>> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
>>> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
>>> are released.
>>>
>>> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
>>> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>>>
>>> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify
>>> the web site to point to it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
>>> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts
>>> will already exist.
>>>
>>> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>>>
>>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
>>> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
>>> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo
>>> has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
>>> is, then?
>>>
>>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
>>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release
>>> manager for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have
>>> to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
>>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
>>> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
>>> independently of log4j.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>>>
>>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>>> ...
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>>
>>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
>>> ugly URL honestly)
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>>>
>>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
>>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

One issue we came across in practice is that Scala 2.12 requires Java 8,
but we don't want to require that for the entire build, so we separated the
repo. This also helps avoid making the main log4j repo from taking forever
to build and release which can help the RERO idea. Plus, these non-core
modules don't change nearly as often as log4j-core or log4j-api, so they
don't really need new releases all that often.

On 28 February 2017 at 01:44, Remko Popma  wrote:

> To be honest I still don't understand
>
> * the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
> * how different repos fit into that vision
> * what different websites we are planning to create to give users access
> to these different modules
> * what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
> * who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above
>
> My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is
> about the whole splitting up the release.
>
> Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's
> already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would
> be very useful.)
>
> Remko
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala
>> APIs. Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
>> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
>> are released.
>>
>> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
>> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>>
>> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify
>> the web site to point to it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
>> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts
>> will already exist.
>>
>> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>>
>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
>> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
>> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo
>> has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
>> is, then?
>>
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager
>> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to
>> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
>> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
>> independently of log4j.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>>
>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>> ...
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>
>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
>> ugly URL honestly)
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>>
>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
>> maintenance, too.
>>
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
>> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>>
>> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I
>> started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via
>> .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
>> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
>> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
>> be more annoying to maintain?
>>
>> On 24 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Remko Popma]

To be honest I still don't understand

* the vision of what we ultimately want to achieve
* how different repos fit into that vision
* what different websites we are planning to create to give users access to
these different modules
* what websites are going to be driven from which modules or projects
* who of us is going to be driving what aspect of the above

My lack of understanding is not just limited to the Scala modules but is
about the whole splitting up the release.

Perhaps a diagram would help clarify my understanding. (I think there's
already a JIRA or an epic for the above. Adding some diagrams there would
be very useful.)

Remko

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:26 Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala APIs.
> Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
> are released.
>
> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>
> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify the
> web site to point to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts
> will already exist.
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>
> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought
> that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to
> the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been
> delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
> is, then?
>
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>
> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager
> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to
> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
> independently of log4j.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> The site repository is laid out like this:
>
> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
> ...
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>
> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
> ugly URL honestly)
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>
> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
> maintenance, too.
>
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:
>
> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>
> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started
> doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if
> possible to keep links from breaking.
> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
> be more annoying to maintain?
>
> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  wrote:
>
> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a
> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead
> link.
>
> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in
> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the
> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” -
> they will just have links to each other.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

I'd be in favour of starting a new release train for the Log4j Scala APIs.
Not exactly sure which version to start from, though.

On 27 February 2017 at 18:35, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a
> catch-22.  If I release without them then we have a regression until they
> are released.
>
> This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j
> versions. Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.
>
> Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify the
> web site to point to it.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it
> harder to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts
> will already exist.
>
> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>>
>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I
>> thought that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have
>> put it to the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo
>> has been delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
>>> is, then?
>>>
>>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that
 the log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache 
 wrote:

 Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release
 manager for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have
 to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
 log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
 the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
 independently of log4j.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 The site repository is laid out like this:

 log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
 log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
 ...
 log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/

 Option 1 is to put it here instead:
 log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a
 pretty ugly URL honestly)
 log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory

 Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
 manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
 maintenance, too.

 On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache 
 wrote:

> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>
> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I
> started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via
> .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main
> site. Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, 
> could
> this be more annoying to maintain?
>
> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really
>> need a Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will 
>> be
>> a dead link.
>>
>> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked
>> in adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to
>> the Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be
>> “integrated” - they will just have links to each other.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>>
>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need
>>> fixes.
>>>
>>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
>>> cosmetic.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Ralph Goers]

If you use that excuse they will never get released as it creates a catch-22.  
If I release without them then we have a regression until they are released.

This is why you shouldn’t really be releasing them using the Log4j versions. 
Change the artifactIds so they can start at 1.0, 2.0 or whatever.

Once you create the release and deploy it to the web site I can modify the web 
site to point to it.

Ralph

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it harder 
> to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts will 
> already exist.
> 
> On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers  > wrote:
> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal > > wrote:
>> 
>> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>> 
>> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought 
>> that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to 
>> the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been 
>> delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it is, 
>> then?
>> 
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache > > wrote:
>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the 
>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager 
>>> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to 
>>> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as 
>>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying 
>>> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain 
>>> independently of log4j.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 The site repository is laid out like this:
 
 log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
 log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
 ...
 log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
 
 Option 1 is to put it here instead:
 log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty 
 ugly URL honestly)
 log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
 
 Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to 
 manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires 
 maintenance, too.
 
 On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache > wrote:
 There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be 
 committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> I see two ways of doing that, though:
> 
> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I 
> started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via 
> .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. 
> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could 
> this be more annoying to maintain?
> 
> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  > wrote:
> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a 
> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a 
> dead link.
> 
> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to 
> the Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be 
> “integrated” - they will just have links to each other.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>> 
>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache > > wrote:
>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>> 
>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly 
>> 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

Well, you included 2.10 and 2.11 in 2.8.1-rc1 which kind of makes it harder
to release from the log4j-scala repo when two of the three artifacts will
already exist.

On 27 February 2017 at 12:14, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal 
> wrote:
>
> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
>
> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought
> that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to
> the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been
> delayed and I start to get disappointed.
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
>> is, then?
>>
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
>>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>>>
>>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release
>>> manager for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have
>>> to include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
>>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
>>> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
>>> independently of log4j.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>>>
>>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>>> ...
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>>
>>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
>>> ugly URL honestly)
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>>>
>>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
>>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
>>> maintenance, too.
>>>
>>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
 committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 I see two ways of doing that, though:

 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I
 started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via
 .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
 Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
 be more annoying to maintain?

 On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache 
 wrote:

> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need
> a Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a
> dead link.
>
> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked
> in adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to
> the Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be
> “integrated” - they will just have links to each other.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>
> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache 
> wrote:
>
>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need
>> fixes.
>>
>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
>> cosmetic.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules
>> around feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the
>> idea of making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing
>> now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does 
>> not
>> work for me (see JIRA).
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes
>>> and such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but
>>> don't really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master 
>>> into
>>> a 2.8 branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>>
>>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Ralph Goers]

Why is the release of log4j-scala delayed?

Ralph

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Mikael Ståldal  
> wrote:
> 
> I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.
> 
> I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought 
> that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to 
> the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been 
> delayed and I start to get disappointed.
> 
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it is, 
> then?
> 
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  > wrote:
> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the 
> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache > > wrote:
>> 
>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager 
>> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to 
>> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as 
>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying the 
>> Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain independently 
>> of log4j.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>>> 
>>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>>> ...
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>> 
>>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty 
>>> ugly URL honestly)
>>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>>> 
>>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to 
>>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires 
>>> maintenance, too.
>>> 
>>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be 
>>> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 I see two ways of doing that, though:
 
 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started 
 doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess 
 if possible to keep links from breaking.
 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. 
 Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this 
 be more annoying to maintain?
 
 On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache > wrote:
 From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a 
 Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a 
 dead link.
 
 All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
 adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the 
 Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” 
 - they will just have links to each other.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> 
> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
> 
> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  > wrote:
> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
> 
> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly 
> cosmetic.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory > > wrote:
>> 
>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules 
>> around feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the 
>> idea of making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that 
>> fixing now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but 
>> it does not work for me (see JIRA).
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and 
>> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't 
>> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 
>> 2.8 branch. 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Mikael Ståldal]

I would really like LOG4J2-1661 and LOG4J2-1690 out in the next release.

I implemented LOG4J2-1690 only in the new log4j-scala repo since I thought
that it would be released as part of 2.8, otherwise I would have put it to
the main repo as well. But now releasing of the log4j-scala repo has been
delayed and I start to get disappointed.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
> is, then?
>
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:
>
>> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
>> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>>
>> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager
>> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to
>> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
>> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
>> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
>> independently of log4j.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>>
>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>> ...
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>>
>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
>> ugly URL honestly)
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>>
>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
>> maintenance, too.
>>
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
>>> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>>>
>>> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I
>>> started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via
>>> .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
>>> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
>>> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
>>> be more annoying to maintain?
>>>
>>> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need
 a Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a
 dead link.

 All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked
 in adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to
 the Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be
 “integrated” - they will just have links to each other.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

 It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.

 On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache 
 wrote:

> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>
> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
> cosmetic.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
>
> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules
> around feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the
> idea of making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing
> now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does 
> not
> work for me (see JIRA).
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and
>> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't
>> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 
>> 2.8
>> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>
>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably
>> shortly after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>>
>> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but
>> that's for another day. I think getting everything working properly in 
>> Java
>> 9 would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our
>> APIs will still work properly in the future or if we need to break

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

Relative symlinks would work for that regardless of version. Option 1 it
is, then?

On 25 February 2017 at 00:22, Apache  wrote:

> Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the
> log4j site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
>
> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager
> for log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to
> include the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as
> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying
> the Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain
> independently of log4j.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> The site repository is laid out like this:
>
> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
> ...
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>
> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
> ugly URL honestly)
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>
> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
> maintenance, too.
>
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:
>
>> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
>> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>>
>> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I
>> started doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via
>> .htaccess if possible to keep links from breaking.
>> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
>> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
>> be more annoying to maintain?
>>
>> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a
>>> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead
>>> link.
>>>
>>> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in
>>> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the
>>> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” -
>>> they will just have links to each other.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
>>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>>>
>>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  wrote:
>>>
 I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.

 The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
 cosmetic.

 Ralph

 On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 
 wrote:

 I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules
 around feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the
 idea of making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing
 now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not
 work for me (see JIRA).

 Gary

 On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and
> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't
> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 
> 2.8
> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>
> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably
> shortly after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>
> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but
> that's for another day. I think getting everything working properly in 
> Java
> 9 would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our
> APIs will still work properly in the future or if we need to break
> backwards compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in
> migrating the API if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather
> unorthodox abuse of the feature.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>



 --
 E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
 Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
 

 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

Note that the link in the log4j site can reference a symlink so that the log4j 
site never has to change when the Scala site is updated.

Ralph

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Apache  wrote:
> 
> Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager for 
> log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to include 
> the log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as 
> log4j-examples, etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying the 
> Scala site parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain independently 
> of log4j.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> The site repository is laid out like this:
>> 
>> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
>> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
>> ...
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
>> 
>> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
>> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty ugly 
>> URL honestly)
>> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
>> 
>> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to 
>> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires 
>> maintenance, too.
>> 
>> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache > > wrote:
>> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be 
>> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>>> 
>>> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started 
>>> doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if 
>>> possible to keep links from breaking.
>>> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. 
>>> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this 
>>> be more annoying to maintain?
>>> 
>>> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a 
>>> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead 
>>> link.
>>> 
>>> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
>>> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the 
>>> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” - 
>>> they will just have links to each other.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 
 It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
 
 On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache > wrote:
 I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
 
 The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly 
 cosmetic.
 
 Ralph
 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory  > wrote:
> 
> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around 
> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of 
> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is 
> the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work 
> for me (see JIRA).
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and 
> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't 
> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 
> 2.8 branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
> 
> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly 
> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
> 
> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's 
> for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 
> would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our 
> APIs will still work properly in the future or if we need to break 
> backwards compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in 
> migrating the API if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather 
> unorthodox abuse of the feature.
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

Option 2 makes no sense to me.  I don’t plan on being the release manager for 
log4j-scala. In order for me to implement option 2 I would have to include the 
log4j-scala site into the log4j release process - as well as log4j-examples, 
etc if they move out. That is just not doable. Deploying the Scala site 
parallel to log4j makes it much easier to maintain independently of log4j.

Ralph

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> The site repository is laid out like this:
> 
> log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
> log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
> ...
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/
> 
> Option 1 is to put it here instead:
> log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty ugly 
> URL honestly)
> log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory
> 
> Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to 
> manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires maintenance, 
> too.
> 
> On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  > wrote:
> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be 
> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>> 
>> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started 
>> doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if 
>> possible to keep links from breaking.
>> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. 
>> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this 
>> be more annoying to maintain?
>> 
>> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache > > wrote:
>> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a 
>> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead 
>> link.
>> 
>> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
>> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the 
>> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” - 
>> they will just have links to each other.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>>> 
>>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache >> > wrote:
>>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>>> 
>>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly 
>>> cosmetic.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
 On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote:
 
 I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around 
 feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of 
 making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is 
 the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work 
 for me (see JIRA).
 
 Gary
 
 On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker > wrote:
 I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such 
 ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really 
 want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8 
 branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
 
 * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
 * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
 * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly 
 after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
 
 I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's 
 for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 
 would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs 
 will still work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards 
 compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API 
 if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the 
 feature.
 
 -- 
 Matt Sicker >
 
 
 
 -- 
 E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com  | 
 ggreg...@apache.org  
 Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
 
   
 
 JUnit 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

The site repository is laid out like this:

log4j/2.x/ -(symlink)-> log4j-2.8/
log4j/log4j-2.8/log4j-api/
...
log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/

Option 1 is to put it here instead:
log4j/scala/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ (or some variant; that's a pretty
ugly URL honestly)
log4j/2.x/log4j-api-scala_2.11/ -(symlink)-> above directory

Option 2 is to commit the scala site where it is now, but you'd have to
manage it alongside log4j core releases. Option 1 still requires
maintenance, too.

On 25 February 2017 at 00:05, Apache  wrote:

> There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be
> committed, so I don’t really understand option 1.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> I see two ways of doing that, though:
>
> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started
> doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if
> possible to keep links from breaking.
> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
> be more annoying to maintain?
>
> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  wrote:
>
>> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a
>> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead
>> link.
>>
>> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in
>> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the
>> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” -
>> they will just have links to each other.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>>
>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  wrote:
>>
>>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>>>
>>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
>>> cosmetic.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules
>>> around feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the
>>> idea of making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing
>>> now is the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not
>>> work for me (see JIRA).
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>>
 I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and
 such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't
 really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8
 branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:

 * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
 * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
 * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably
 shortly after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)

 I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but
 that's for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java
 9 would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our
 APIs will still work properly in the future or if we need to break
 backwards compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in
 migrating the API if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather
 unorthodox abuse of the feature.

 --
 Matt Sicker 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker 
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

There is a specific location in svn where the site pages have to be committed, 
so I don’t really understand option 1.

Ralph

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I see two ways of doing that, though:
> 
> 1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started 
> doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if 
> possible to keep links from breaking.
> 2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site. 
> Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this be 
> more annoying to maintain?
> 
> On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  > wrote:
> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a 
> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead 
> link.
> 
> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the 
> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” - 
> they will just have links to each other.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> 
>> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>> 
>> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache > > wrote:
>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>> 
>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly 
>> cosmetic.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around 
>>> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of 
>>> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is 
>>> the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work 
>>> for me (see JIRA).
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker >> > wrote:
>>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such 
>>> ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really 
>>> want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8 
>>> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>> 
>>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>>> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>>> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly 
>>> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>>> 
>>> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's 
>>> for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 
>>> would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs 
>>> will still work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards 
>>> compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API 
>>> if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the 
>>> feature.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker >
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com  | 
>>> ggreg...@apache.org  
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> Spring Batch in Action 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

I see two ways of doing that, though:

1. Commit the Scala site in a separate directory similar to what I started
doing with Log4j Boot. Add redirect pages or rewrite rules via .htaccess if
possible to keep links from breaking.
2. Commit the Scala site where it would go when creating the main site.
Depending on how you update the files in svn for a site update, could this
be more annoying to maintain?

On 24 February 2017 at 22:30, Apache  wrote:

> From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a
> Scala site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead
> link.
>
> All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in
> adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the
> Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” -
> they will just have links to each other.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
>
> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  wrote:
>
>> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>>
>> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
>> cosmetic.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around
>> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of
>> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is
>> the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work
>> for me (see JIRA).
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and
>>> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't
>>> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8
>>> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>>
>>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>>> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>>> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably
>>> shortly after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>>>
>>> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's
>>> for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9
>>> would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs
>>> will still work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards
>>> compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API
>>> if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the
>>> feature.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> 
>>
>> 
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> 
>>
>> 
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> 
>> 
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

From my perspective that doesn’t matter. However, we would really need a Scala 
site before we can modify the Log4j site, otherwise it will be a dead link.

All that really needs to happen is the Scala site needs to be checked in 
adjacent to the Log4j 2 site. Then the Log4j 2 site just has a link to the 
Scala site from the main menu. The two sites won’t really be “integrated” - 
they will just have links to each other.

Ralph

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.
> 
> On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  > wrote:
> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
> 
> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly cosmetic.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory > > wrote:
>> 
>> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around 
>> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of 
>> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is the 
>> null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work for me 
>> (see JIRA).
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker > > wrote:
>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such 
>> ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really 
>> want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8 branch. 
>> Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>> 
>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly 
>> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>> 
>> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's for 
>> another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 would be 
>> a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs will still 
>> work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards compatibility. 
>> Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API if needed for 
>> 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the feature.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com  | 
>> ggreg...@apache.org  
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Spring Batch in Action 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Matt Sicker]

It is cosmetic, but we'd also be adding the Scala 2.12 module.

On 24 February 2017 at 14:17, Apache  wrote:

> I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.
>
> The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly
> cosmetic.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
>
> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around
> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of
> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is
> the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work
> for me (see JIRA).
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and
>> such ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't
>> really want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8
>> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>>
>> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
>> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
>> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly
>> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>>
>> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's
>> for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9
>> would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs
>> will still work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards
>> compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API
>> if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the
>> feature.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> 
>
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> 
>
> 
> Spring Batch in Action
> 
> 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Apache]

I don’t have the numbers but I have a couple of issues that need fixes.

The modules stuff doesn’t require a major version bump. It is mostly cosmetic.

Ralph

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> 
> I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around 
> feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of 
> making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is the 
> null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work for me 
> (see JIRA).
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  > wrote:
> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such 
> ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really 
> want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8 branch. 
> Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
> 
> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly 
> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
> 
> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's for 
> another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9 would be a 
> good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs will still 
> work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards compatibility. 
> Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API if needed for 9+, 
> though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the feature.
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com  | 
> ggreg...@apache.org  
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition 
> 
>   
> 
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition 
> 
>   
> 
> Spring Batch in Action 
> 
>   
> 
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com  
> Home: http://garygregory.com/ 
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory 

Re: Roadmap for 2.8.1

[Gary Gregory]

I think we can do 2.8.1 with our current bug fixes. Moving modules around
feels like a 2.9 item to me but that's just me. I really like the idea of
making bug fixes available ASAP. The only issue I see that fixing now is
the null classloader issue for which we have a patch but it does not work
for me (see JIRA).

Gary

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I'm hoping we can get this released soon as we have some bugfixes and such
> ready to go. I also want to move forward with 2.9 changes but don't really
> want to deal with creating a 2.9 branch or forking master into a 2.8
> branch. Let's go over anything left to do for 2.8.1:
>
> * Integrated log4j-api-scala website into main site
> * Remove scala modules from logging-log4j2 repo
> * Release scala modules from logging-log4j-scala repo (presumably shortly
> after releasing 2.8.1 of core?)
>
> I also have ideas on what we can shoot for in 2.9 and beyond, but that's
> for another day. I think getting everything working properly in Java 9
> would be a good thing to start doing soon so we can figure out if our APIs
> will still work properly in the future or if we need to break backwards
> compatibility. Although, multi-jar support could help in migrating the API
> if needed for 9+, though that would be a rather unorthodox abuse of the
> feature.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker 
>



-- 
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition



JUnit in Action, Second Edition



Spring Batch in Action


Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory