Thanks Ralph for explaining the background on this. Actually I am for version 3. It confuses me to see at leats 3 numbers in the name. Imaging the following version number: log4j2 2.2.2-BETA2 gives me headache. My current fave for version numbers is http://semver.org/
As you already mentioned, for a major release number bump it is natural that bc goes away. That being said I don't see reason why we would need to make an explicit 2 after log4j. What, if we would level to another log4j? Lets say v3 is not bc with log4j2 2.0. Then we would have either log4j3 1.0 or log4j2 3.0. Basically the name log4j2 as we use it now is a change of the product name and we should be carefully with that. It is the same as log4j-xt or log4java or log4j-nextgeneration. I would feel better if we could stick with the original project name log4j and just use version numbering to express the changes. On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I should also mention that there is more than 1 artifact. There currently is > log4j12-api, log4j2-api, logj42-core, log4j2-jcl, slf4j-impl, logj42-flume-og > and log4j2-flume-ng. Yes, I agree, this is to consider. By the way, is your plan to always release them all at once, giving them all the same version number, or are different version numbers for each component allowed? Cheers Christian > > Ralph > > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> 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 > -- 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
