On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 8:31 AM Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Would - in this case - an 1.2.18 with a NoOp NTEventLogAppender be OK? > > I am sure 1.2.18 with NoOp (or even throwing NTEventLogAppender unless a > silence system property is set) > appender would be more than enough for 1.2.18 > > If the appender is not used in the wild, we are ok. > If somebody still uses the appender, they would have an opportunity to > mention it. > If somebody would want to resurrect NTEventLogAppender, we could add it as > a new "module" (==separate jar file). > > At any point in time, users have an option to keep using 1.2.17 that they > used for ages. > In actuality, that is not the case. When you deal with large stacks, transitive dependencies often bring in different versions of the same artifact from completely different branches of your dependency tree, *especially* with low-level libraries like... logging, which is why it is critical to provide binary compatibility. Gary > So removing NTEventLogAppender is not really bad, and there's always an > option to re-introduce it. > > Vladimir >
