Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Apache <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is released.

Ralph

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>]

I'll try to put in a fix for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1988?filter=-1 (java.util.ConcurrentModificationException with AsyncLogger?) today. 

Stretch goal: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2031 (Messages appear out of order in log file (was: Log4j2 log file not reflecting application log function calls))

Remko 

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:19, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That all sounds great!
> 
> Gary
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think we should release 2.9.1. If Ralph doesn't have time this weekend, I
>> can RM.
>> 
>> I have a feature (system properties/environment variables normalization)
>> I'd like to add to 2.10 and am waiting for our bugfixes first.
>> 
>>> On 14 September 2017 at 14:09, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new
>>> features into master?
>>> 
>>> I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on
>>> September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
>>> 
>>> Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with
>> Java
>>> 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to
>> fix
>>> any issues found.
>>> 
>>> Then we add new features for 2.10.0.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 2017-09-12 06:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

That all sounds great!

Gary

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should release 2.9.1. If Ralph doesn't have time this weekend, I
> can RM.
>
> I have a feature (system properties/environment variables normalization)
> I'd like to add to 2.10 and am waiting for our bugfixes first.
>
> On 14 September 2017 at 14:09, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new
> > features into master?
> >
> > I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on
> > September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
> >
> > Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with
> Java
> > 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to
> fix
> > any issues found.
> >
> > Then we add new features for 2.10.0.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-09-12 06:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >
> >> OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

I think we should release 2.9.1. If Ralph doesn't have time this weekend, I
can RM.

I have a feature (system properties/environment variables normalization)
I'd like to add to 2.10 and am waiting for our bugfixes first.

On 14 September 2017 at 14:09, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:

> So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new
> features into master?
>
> I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on
> September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
>
> Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with Java
> 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to fix
> any issues found.
>
> Then we add new features for 2.10.0.
>
>
>
> On 2017-09-12 06:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I am fine with adding new features.

Ralph

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> So, now we have released 2.9.1, and JDK 9 GA is out. Do we need an 2.9.2, or can we go on and add features for 2.10.0?
> 
> 
> On 2017-09-14 22:27, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> I plan on doing the release build this weekend. Please hold off on merging new features until after that. I agree with your plan.
>> Ralph
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new features into master?
>>> 
>>> I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
>>> 
>>> Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with Java 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to fix any issues found.
>>> 
>>> Then we add new features for 2.10.0.
> 
> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>]

So, now we have released 2.9.1, and JDK 9 GA is out. Do we need an 
2.9.2, or can we go on and add features for 2.10.0?


On 2017-09-14 22:27, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I plan on doing the release build this weekend. Please hold off on merging new features until after that. I agree with your plan.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new features into master?
>>
>> I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
>>
>> Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with Java 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to fix any issues found.
>>
>> Then we add new features for 2.10.0.

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I plan on doing the release build this weekend. Please hold off on merging new features until after that. I agree with your plan.

Ralph

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new features into master?
> 
> I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.
> 
> Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with Java 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 2.9.2 to fix any issues found.
> 
> Then we add new features for 2.10.0.
> 
> 
> On 2017-09-12 06:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.
>> Ralph
> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>]

So do we plan to release 2.9.1 soon? Should we wait with merging new 
features into master?

I think it would be good to release 2.9.1 before the Java 9 release on 
September 21th, since we have fixed a few Java 9 related issues.

Then we should wait for the Java 9 release, and test Log4j 2.9.1 with 
Java 9 GA to verify that everything works fine. If not, we can do a 
2.9.2 to fix any issues found.

Then we add new features for 2.10.0.


On 2017-09-12 06:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
> OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.
> 
> Ralph

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

OK. The module is commented out along with the update to changes.xml.

Ralph

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sounds good to me. I'd rather get some more features in for 2.10.0 first.
> 
> On 11 September 2017 at 18:33, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I’d be OK with not publishing log4j-appserver right now but I’d prefer to
>>> leave the module in but remove it from the parent pom so that it doesn’t
>>> get built or deployed. Then I don’t think it has to be added to the
>> release
>>> notes even though it technically is still part of the source release.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have a problem with that?
>>> 
>> 
>> Sounds reasonable.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of
>>> classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. A
>>> new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server support
>>> should be in 2.10.0.
>>>> 
>>>> We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1
>>> without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some
>>> regressions in 2.9.0.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is
>>> one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to
>>> accommodate.
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
>>>>>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0
>>> that's
>>>>>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like
>>> that,
>>>>>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs
>> in
>>>>>>>> 2.9.0?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of
>> the
>>> week
>>>>>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java
>> 9
>>> is
>>>>>>>>> released.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

Sounds good to me. I'd rather get some more features in for 2.10.0 first.

On 11 September 2017 at 18:33, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I’d be OK with not publishing log4j-appserver right now but I’d prefer to
> > leave the module in but remove it from the parent pom so that it doesn’t
> > get built or deployed. Then I don’t think it has to be added to the
> release
> > notes even though it technically is still part of the source release.
> >
> > Does anyone have a problem with that?
> >
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Gary
>
>
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of
> > classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. A
> > new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server support
> > should be in 2.10.0.
> > >
> > > We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1
> > without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some
> > regressions in 2.9.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
> > >> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is
> > one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to
> > accommodate.
> > >> Ralph
> > >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
> > >>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
> > >>>
> > >>> Gary
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0
> > that's
> > >>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like
> > that,
> > >>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs
> in
> > >>>>> 2.9.0?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of
> the
> > week
> > >>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java
> 9
> > is
> > >>>>>> released.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ralph
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

> I’d be OK with not publishing log4j-appserver right now but I’d prefer to
> leave the module in but remove it from the parent pom so that it doesn’t
> get built or deployed. Then I don’t think it has to be added to the release
> notes even though it technically is still part of the source release.
>
> Does anyone have a problem with that?
>

Sounds reasonable.

Gary


>
> Ralph
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of
> classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. A
> new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server support
> should be in 2.10.0.
> >
> > We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1
> without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some
> regressions in 2.9.0.
> >
> >
> > On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is
> one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to
> accommodate.
> >> Ralph
> >>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
> >>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0
> that's
> >>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like
> that,
> >>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
> >>>>> 2.9.0?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the
> week
> >>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9
> is
> >>>>>> released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I’d be OK with not publishing log4j-appserver right now but I’d prefer to leave the module in but remove it from the parent pom so that it doesn’t get built or deployed. Then I don’t think it has to be added to the release notes even though it technically is still part of the source release.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

Ralph

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. A new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server support should be in 2.10.0.
> 
> We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1 without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some regressions in 2.9.0.
> 
> 
> On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to accommodate.
>> Ralph
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
>>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
>>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
>>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
>>>>> 2.9.0?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
>>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>> 
> 
> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>]

I don't think we should decide the versioning based on number of 
classes/methods/LOC added. We should decide it based on features added. 
A new feature warrants a bump in minor version, so the app server 
support should be in 2.10.0.

We could also descope the app server support for now, and release 2.9.1 
without it. I think that would be good given that we had quite some 
regressions in 2.9.0.


On 2017-09-11 17:34, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to accommodate.
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>>>
>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
>>>> 2.9.0?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>>>>> released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
> 
> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

It was indeed my intention to have Jetty, JBoss, etc in that module. They are all mutually exclusive and presumably the dependencies would be <scope>provided</scope> so there really should be no conflict in having them all reside in the same module.

I haven’t been pushing splitting up core as I have been advocating that some of the things in the log4j 2 build might be better served being moved to another repo/sub-project much as we have done for Scala.

Ralph

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:45 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure how much of semantic versioning we really want to adopt or
> have adopted in the past. This is really about managing user's expectations
> when they update from one version to the next.
> 
> In this case, a new module feels like a new feature. Yes, the new module
> adds only one class, but we can slap a "Works with Apache Tomcat" sticker
> on the front now, so I am leaning toward 2.10.0.
> 
> Also, do we really want to end up with an log4j-appserver module as opposed
> to a log4j-tomcat module? What happens when we want to provide some code
> for JBoss, WebSphere, and so on? It seems heavy/messy to lump all of those
> dependencies in the one module. Especially since we have been talking
> splitting up the core module...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one
>> class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to
>> accommodate.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
>>> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
>>>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
>>>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
>>>>> 2.9.0?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the
>> week
>>>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>>>>>> released.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

I'm not sure how much of semantic versioning we really want to adopt or
have adopted in the past. This is really about managing user's expectations
when they update from one version to the next.

In this case, a new module feels like a new feature. Yes, the new module
adds only one class, but we can slap a "Works with Apache Tomcat" sticker
on the front now, so I am leaning toward 2.10.0.

Also, do we really want to end up with an log4j-appserver module as opposed
to a log4j-tomcat module? What happens when we want to provide some code
for JBoss, WebSphere, and so on? It seems heavy/messy to lump all of those
dependencies in the one module. Especially since we have been talking
splitting up the core module...

Thoughts?

Gary

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

> I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one
> class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to
> accommodate.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
> > requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
> >> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
> >> I'd rather wait for that first.
> >>
> >> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
> >>> 2.9.0?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the
> week
> >>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
> >>>> released.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
> >>
>
>
>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I thought about that, but it really is a pretty minor addition - it is one class. That said, if others feel that 2.10.0 is better I am happy to accommodate.

Ralph

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
> requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
>> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
>> I'd rather wait for that first.
>> 
>> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
>>> 2.9.0?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
>>>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>>>> released.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>> 

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

It seems to me that the recent addition of the log4j-appserver module
requires a version bump to 2.10.0, not 2.9.1.

Gary

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
> ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
> I'd rather wait for that first.
>
> On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
> > 2.9.0?
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
> >
> >> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
> >> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
> >> released.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>]

I still have my outstanding branch that didn't make it into 2.9.0 that's
ready to merge, though if you're ready to do a bugfix release like that,
I'd rather wait for that first.

On 11 September 2017 at 03:43, Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org> wrote:

> Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in
> 2.9.0?
>
>
>
> On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
>
>> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week
>> as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is
>> released.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>

Re: Log4J 2.9.1 release

[Mikael Ståldal <mi...@apache.org>]

Sounds good. Have we fixed all discovered regressions and new bugs in 2.9.0?


On 2017-09-11 09:39, Apache wrote:
> I am thinking about doing the Log4J 2.9.1 release at the end of the week as there are a couple of bugs I'd like published by the time Java 9 is released.
> 
> Ralph
>