I split this one up by accident. There was a follow up commit that updated the
places where they were updated in main. I don’t recall any particular issue
being resolved, though I was comparing the 2.x and main branches to look for
differences. Guess I did it in reverse here.
—
Matt Sicker
> On
> 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 onc
> 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 yo
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 PM,
