Chainsaw was extracted into its own repository, so those changes are probably ok at least.
— Matt Sicker > On Dec 18, 2021, at 12:17, Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 5:32 PM Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com> wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:34 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> If you delete anything that is public or protected, you will break >>> binary compatibility, and that's a no-go IMO. >> >> >> Agree. I hope we can get clirr (or something like it) back to work, to >> prove binary compatibility. >> > > Sorry for the extra mail but I'm excited, I just learned japicmp exists :-) > > "Someone" wrote a nice blog post on how to use it... > > > https://garygregory.wordpress.com/2020/06/14/how-we-handle-binary-compatibility-at-apache-commons/ > > So the setup was easy to steal... > > https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/blob/master/pom.xml > https://github.com/apache/commons-parent/blob/master/pom.xml > > Leads to question: how do we feel about removal of .lf5 (javax.swing > logging) and .chainsaw (java.awt logging) packages? > > It's an old change that was already on the trunk. > > > https://github.com/apache/log4j/pull/16/commits/5c29c4048b4860aa7f6a86420f20208459e6c22c#diff-9c5fb3d1b7e3b0f54bc5c4182965c4fe1f9023d449017cece3005d3f90e8e4d8R251 > > I can understand why it was made. > > > Cheers, > > > Leo
