> On Nov 6, 2023, at 2:37 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 05:39, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> If we have changes in 2.x that are not in 3.x they aren’t many and we will
>> never find that out without releasing. In general users don’t want to use
>> alphas or
It seems like a good idea to keep releasing alpha-beta-milestones (whatever
we want to call these) for pre-3.0 for now. TBH, I've not even tried it in
my work projects yet. I'd rather do that on a very recent alpha. It feels
like our alpha1 is "old".
Gary
On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 4:37 AM Piotr P.
Hi Ralph,
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 05:39, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If we have changes in 2.x that are not in 3.x they aren’t many and we will
> never find that out without releasing. In general users don’t want to use
> alphas or betas. The alphas and betas are there so we can get feedback on
>
I added @InternalApi to all the classes that were marked “consider this class
private”. As for the plugins, yes, now that we’ve got that stabilized, I think
that makes sense to keep stable, too.
—
Matt Sicker
> On Nov 5, 2023, at 16:22, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 5, 2023, at 2:58
> On Nov 5, 2023, at 2:58 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I’ve suggested that we annotate code around API compatibility guarantees, and
> we are using @InternalApi in main to mark things that shouldn’t be used as
> stable code (even if it’s unlikely to change over time).
>
Please be careful of
> On Nov 4, 2023, at 00:08, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> […]
>
> Agreed, the earlier, so better, but making Log4j 3.x GA "first thing next
> year" seems to be quite of a rush.
After another beta release, I don’t think that’s a rush. It’s not like the
entire ecosystem will upgrade all at
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 10:08 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>
>> However, like myself, organizations are not going to delay upgrading
>> too long. Having Log4j 3.x be available before the majority of orgs
>> switch to Spring 3 will greatly improve its adoption.
>
> Agreed, the earlier, so
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, at 22:28, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 2023, at 12:47 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>> Sorry, I am a bit lost here - you spoke about Spring 3, and it sounded like
>> it was something new. I understand this is nothing new. So, what exactly are
>> we aiming at that
> On Nov 3, 2023, at 12:47 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, at 03:36, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, at 17:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
Log4j 3 matching Spring 3 seems obviously a good thing
On Fri, Nov 3, 2023, at 03:36, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, at 17:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> Log4j 3 matching Spring 3 seems obviously a good thing to me. Going to Java
>>> 17 seems to me as well a good thing.
>>>
>>>
I believe there is confusion here as to what level of compatibility
requirements we set at the release of 3.0.0. Some remaining changes proposed
for 3.x are technically breaking changes depending on the level of API
stability in question. Personally, I think we should demarcate what APIs are
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, at 17:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Log4j 3 matching Spring 3 seems obviously a good thing to me. Going to Java
>> 17 seems to me as well a good thing.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 7:04 AM Ralph
If we actually annotate the various public APIs like how JUnit 5 does, then we
could have more flexibility to remove things.
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 4:10 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 09:42, Apache wrote:
>> I’m confused. 3.0.0 hasn’t even been released so
Hi Ralph,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 11:53, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Releases do not have to be perfect. In fact, someone advised me once that you
> don’t want them to be as that is how you draw in new committers.
I don't know about that, all you got from Log4Shell is one lousy
committer. And that was
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, at 17:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Log4j 3 matching Spring 3 seems obviously a good thing to me. Going to Java
> 17 seems to me as well a good thing.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 7:04 AM Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I should add that I am concerned that we are missing a huge
Log4j 3 matching Spring 3 seems obviously a good thing to me. Going to Java
17 seems to me as well a good thing.
Gary
On Thu, Nov 2, 2023, 7:04 AM Ralph Goers wrote:
> I should add that I am concerned that we are missing a huge opportunity
> with Spring 3. A lot of folks will start their
I should add that I am concerned that we are missing a huge opportunity with
Spring 3. A lot of folks will start their migration to Spring 3 early next
year. Tying Log4J 3.x to that is a big opportunity for people to upgrade at the
same time.
Ralph
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 3:53 AM, Ralph Goers
Piotr, I haven’t committed much to 3.x since June because it already has
everything I set out to do. It is everyone else who keeps adding crap that
“must” be done before it can be released. Yet another year is far too long. If
that is the case my vote is to skip the additional stuff. And I will
Hi Ralph,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 09:42, Apache wrote:
> I’m confused. 3.0.0 hasn’t even been released so how can I be preventing
> adding anything. Personally I would prefer the monitoring to be in a separate
> repo but I am ok with adding it to the main build. IAM all for moving async
> out
I’m confused. 3.0.0 hasn’t even been released so how can I be preventing adding
anything. Personally I would prefer the monitoring to be in a separate repo but
I am ok with adding it to the main build. IAM all for moving async out but
unless it can be done quickly I’d rather do it in a future
Hi Ralph,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 08:39, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 05:53, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > JPMS is not the main target for 2.x as 2.x still supports Java 8 and has to
> > use “versioned” jars so it can work in Java 8 and Java 11+. 3.x only
> > supports
Hi Ralph,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 05:53, Ralph Goers wrote:
> JPMS is not the main target for 2.x as 2.x still supports Java 8 and has to
> use “versioned” jars so it can work in Java 8 and Java 11+. 3.x only
> supports Java 11 and is really where we want to focus our attention. I wish
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
