I agree very much with actions that make Log4j 2 more visible and accessible. It is important to consistently communicate the message that Log4j 1 is the old, legacy, End Of Life library and that we encourage everyone to move to Log4j 2.
However, it would be a mistake to try to start rebranding Log4j 2 as just Log4j now. We have been marketing Log4j 2 as the new thing that makes Log4j cool again. This has been fairly successful. "Log4j 2" has been gaining recognition and traction in social media and places like StackOverflow. I think we need to stay consistent with our message. "Log4j 2 is NOT the Log4j that you knew." "Log4j 2 is different and better than the old Log4j." "You liked Logback because you were disappointed with Log4j? Try Log4j 2 and be pleasantly suprised!". Etc. I strongly think that it will be easier to raise awareness of Log4j 2 and to get people to migrate away from Log4j 1 if we keep the "2" in the name. Remko On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I have removed Log4j 1 from the main logging site and changed the title to > just Log4j. The Log4j site has a link to Log4j 1. Log4j extras is still > on the main site but should probably also be moved to the Legacy area of > the Log4j site. > > Also, the Log4j site continues to say Log4j 2 predominantly. I think in > the next release we should remove the “2” from all the headings. We can > leave it in the text so that viewers can still tell that it is not Log4j 1, > but I think it would be good to gradually drop the “2” and just refer to > the version/release number. > > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
