Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Matt Sicker]

I’m good with a beta release to come soon. I’m still working on a branch to fix 
up the remaining SPI updates to avoid guessing at ClassLoaders, but that isn’t 
required for a beta release. As for the branches, if 2.x was made into 3.0, 
then main would be 4.0, and where would that leave us? Back in the same debate. 
I suggest you look at the main branch more closely.

> On Nov 28, 2023, at 4:19 AM, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> 
> I plan to work on `main` until February, finalize recycler implementation,
> carry out whatever improvement I can, and release `3.0.0`.
> 
> *If you have any objections with this plan, or if you have things to do on
> `main` and you cannot comply with this schedule, etc., let's discuss.* I
> want to agree on a plan and timeline that works for you.
> 
> *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
> changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
> several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x`
> from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
> releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with
> Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me. Ralph even threatened to
> veto all non-bugfix changes on `2.x`
> . I am
> outnumbered and I accept the defeat. Let's release `3.0.0` from `main` and
> move on. I don't want to spend time discussing this subject further.

Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Volkan Yazıcı]

Okay. I will do the next beta release sometime this week. We can do more as
we see fit.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 15:59, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> I do not understand what my email provider has against Volkan. Once again
> I did not receive his email.
>
> Looking at the archive I see you want to release 3.0.0 in February. That
> may be possible but that isn’t exactly what was discussed in the last video
> meeting we had. The meeting notes are at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hab4-RTeG13CnH5OAJlYJicSJV_fJweCZ0s1dq_LZ_A/edit.
> However, in looking that I don’t see mention of releases. We discussed
> performing beta releases and at least one RC release before at GA release.
> As I recall we were talking about doing a release every 2 or 3 weeks until
> GA.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 2023, at 3:55 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Volkan,
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 11:20, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> >> *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
> >> changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
> >> several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking
> `3.x`
> >> from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
> >> releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations
> with
> >> Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me.
> >
> > The number of changes in `main` that didn't go to `2.x` is also
> > titanic. We all agree we are in the middle of a large river, the only
> > thing were our opinions differ is which shore is closer.
> >
> > As an example: `log4j-jakarta-web` in 2.x (and even in main) was
> > missing three important changes that were only present in `log4j-web`
> > (main branch).
> >
> > What you can do is to:
> >
> > * for each module, except the big ones (`log4j-api`, `log4j-core`,
> > `log4j-1.2-api`, `log4j-layout-template-json`) open a Github issue to
> > ask people to check the differences between `main` and `2.x` and
> > remove the regressions,
> > * for the big modules: you can check JTL, I can check the 1.2 bridge
> > and you can split `log4j-core` into smaller (package-size?) chunks and
> > open issues for them,
> > * regarding `log4j-api` we'll talk on Sunday.
> >
> > BTW: Matt or Volkan, can you set up a meeting with Google or Zoom for
> > Sunday (20:00 UTC I presume)?
> >
> > Piotr
>
>

Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Ralph Goers]

I do not understand what my email provider has against Volkan. Once again I did 
not receive his email. 

Looking at the archive I see you want to release 3.0.0 in February. That may be 
possible but that isn’t exactly what was discussed in the last video meeting we 
had. The meeting notes are at 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hab4-RTeG13CnH5OAJlYJicSJV_fJweCZ0s1dq_LZ_A/edit.
 However, in looking that I don’t see mention of releases. We discussed 
performing beta releases and at least one RC release before at GA release. As I 
recall we were talking about doing a release every 2 or 3 weeks until GA.

Ralph


> On Nov 28, 2023, at 3:55 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz  wrote:
> 
> Hi Volkan,
> 
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 11:20, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
>> *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
>> changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
>> several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x`
>> from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
>> releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with
>> Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me.
> 
> The number of changes in `main` that didn't go to `2.x` is also
> titanic. We all agree we are in the middle of a large river, the only
> thing were our opinions differ is which shore is closer.
> 
> As an example: `log4j-jakarta-web` in 2.x (and even in main) was
> missing three important changes that were only present in `log4j-web`
> (main branch).
> 
> What you can do is to:
> 
> * for each module, except the big ones (`log4j-api`, `log4j-core`,
> `log4j-1.2-api`, `log4j-layout-template-json`) open a Github issue to
> ask people to check the differences between `main` and `2.x` and
> remove the regressions,
> * for the big modules: you can check JTL, I can check the 1.2 bridge
> and you can split `log4j-core` into smaller (package-size?) chunks and
> open issues for them,
> * regarding `log4j-api` we'll talk on Sunday.
> 
> BTW: Matt or Volkan, can you set up a meeting with Google or Zoom for
> Sunday (20:00 UTC I presume)?
> 
> Piotr

Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Ralph Goers]

> On Nov 28, 2023, at 7:21 AM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> 
> I'm OK with either direction for merges for anything between 2.x and 3.x
> branches for now and certainly until 3.x makes it out as a release. I won't
> argue for or against either.
> 
> As a semi aside, in Commons, I circumvented the whole JPMS garbage, its
> split module horror show for tests by letting the Moditect Maven plug in
> generate module info files at build time.

Piotr used the bnd-maven-plugin to generate the module-info classes. However, 
that doesn’t really eliminate the “whole JPMS garbage” as we still have to test 
it.

Ralph

Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Gary Gregory]

I'm OK with either direction for merges for anything between 2.x and 3.x
branches for now and certainly until 3.x makes it out as a release. I won't
argue for or against either.

As a semi aside, in Commons, I circumvented the whole JPMS garbage, its
split module horror show for tests by letting the Moditect Maven plug in
generate module info files at build time.

Maybe that could be an interesting investigation for Log4j, not that I want
to take the time to do it ATM.

Gary


On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:20 AM Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:

> I plan to work on `main` until February, finalize recycler implementation,
> carry out whatever improvement I can, and release `3.0.0`.
>
> *If you have any objections with this plan, or if you have things to do on
> `main` and you cannot comply with this schedule, etc., let's discuss.* I
> want to agree on a plan and timeline that works for you.
>
> *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
> changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
> several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x`
> from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
> releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with
> Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me. Ralph even threatened to
> veto all non-bugfix changes on `2.x`
> . I am
> outnumbered and I accept the defeat. Let's release `3.0.0` from `main` and
> move on. I don't want to spend time discussing this subject further.
>

Re: [log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Piotr P. Karwasz]

Hi Volkan,

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 11:20, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> *Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
> changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
> several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x`
> from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
> releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with
> Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me.

The number of changes in `main` that didn't go to `2.x` is also
titanic. We all agree we are in the middle of a large river, the only
thing were our opinions differ is which shore is closer.

As an example: `log4j-jakarta-web` in 2.x (and even in main) was
missing three important changes that were only present in `log4j-web`
(main branch).

What you can do is to:

 * for each module, except the big ones (`log4j-api`, `log4j-core`,
`log4j-1.2-api`, `log4j-layout-template-json`) open a Github issue to
ask people to check the differences between `main` and `2.x` and
remove the regressions,
 * for the big modules: you can check JTL, I can check the 1.2 bridge
and you can split `log4j-core` into smaller (package-size?) chunks and
open issues for them,
 * regarding `log4j-api` we'll talk on Sunday.

BTW: Matt or Volkan, can you set up a meeting with Google or Zoom for
Sunday (20:00 UTC I presume)?

Piotr

[log4j] Releasing Log4j `3.0.0`

[Volkan Yazıcı]

I plan to work on `main` until February, finalize recycler implementation,
carry out whatever improvement I can, and release `3.0.0`.

*If you have any objections with this plan, or if you have things to do on
`main` and you cannot comply with this schedule, etc., let's discuss.* I
want to agree on a plan and timeline that works for you.

*Personal remark:* I am against releasing `3.0.0` from `main`. `2.x`
changes that didn't go into `main` are titanic. `main` also contains
several incomplete code, doc, or both. I support the idea of forking `3.x`
from `2.x`, backporting crucial features from `main` to `3.x`, and then
releasing `3.0.0`. I had several email, Slack, and video conversations with
Ralph, Matt, and Piotr. They don't agree with me. Ralph even threatened to
veto all non-bugfix changes on `2.x`
. I am
outnumbered and I accept the defeat. Let's release `3.0.0` from `main` and
move on. I don't want to spend time discussing this subject further.