I am OK with either version but the m.m.m one seems better to me.
Gary
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023, 3:54 PM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> Please don't! The entire versioning scheme in the IT universe is
> already sophisticated enough. Let's stick to the good old school
> `major.minor.patch` convention that
Please don't! The entire versioning scheme in the IT universe is
already sophisticated enough. Let's stick to the good old school
`major.minor.patch` convention that every person and tool understands.
I support Piotr's `2.21.1` proposal, since this is a "patch" for those
who download a GUI tool
Well, you cannot reuse the tag since you have to modify the pom.xml. You could
go with 2.21.0.1.
Ralph
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 5:24 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 13:58, Apache wrote:
>>
>> Yes
>>
>> Ralph
>
> Same release number or 2.21.1? The
Hi Ralph,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 13:58, Apache wrote:
>
> Yes
>
> Ralph
Same release number or 2.21.1? The `rel/2.21.0` tag on the repository
was already used by the faulty release.
Piotr
>
> > On Oct 17, 2023, at 4:31 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Oct
Yes
Ralph
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 4:31 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 13:13, Piotr P. Karwasz
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:37, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> I got hit at work with the loss of log4j-jmx-gui. Is log4j-jmx-gui 2.20.0
>>>
Hi all,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 13:13, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:37, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > I got hit at work with the loss of log4j-jmx-gui. Is log4j-jmx-gui 2.20.0
> > compatible with log4j 2.21.0?
>
> Yes, it is, but there should be a `log4j-jmx-gui` version
Hi Gary,
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 12:37, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I got hit at work with the loss of log4j-jmx-gui. Is log4j-jmx-gui 2.20.0
> compatible with log4j 2.21.0?
Yes, it is, but there should be a `log4j-jmx-gui` version 2.21.0 out there:
