Thanks for looking at this. The choices I considered were
1) <groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId> <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId> <version>1.x<//version> 2) <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId> <artifactId>log4j2</artifactId> <version>1.x</version> 3) <groupId>org.apache.logging</groupId> <artifactId>log4j</groupId> <version>2.x</version> I preferred 1 but am OK with 2. I didn't like 3 simply because the doc was talking about Log4j 2.0 and I quickly realized we would have a 2.1 and then the doc would be strange. So I shortened it to Log4j 2 and then thought it looked better as log4j2. It just seemed more natural to start numbering that at 1.0. Also, 2.0 isn't binary compatible with 1.x (except for the log4j 1.x adapter - which can't be 100% compatible either), but that isn't unusual in a major release change. Ralph On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Hi, > > I saw: > https://people.apache.org/~rgoers/log4j2/download.html > > The release name is for example: > apache-log4j2-1.0-alpha1.tar.gz > > Isn't this a little bit confusing? > > I was under the impression it should be like this: > > <artifactId>log4j</artifactId> > <version>2.0-alpha1-SNAPSHOT</version> > > Thus the name is log4j 2.0 and not log4j2 1.0. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers > Christian > > -- > http://www.grobmeier.de > https://www.timeandbill.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
