Timeline for org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-api:3.0.0 release?

[jluehe]

org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-api is still in 3.0.0-beta2. Are there any plans to release version 3.0.0 anytime soon? Thank you!

[ppkarwasz]

There will be no 3.0.0 release of the Log4j API. This is intentional: both Log4j Core 2 and Log4j Core 3 are designed to use the same API, meaning no code changes are required when upgrading to Log4j Core 3.

The current release, 3.0.0-beta3, of Log4j Core is fully compatible with Log4j API version 2.24.x. To ensure your project always uses the correct API version for Log4j Core 3, we recommend using the log4j-bom for dependency management.

📅 Log4j Core 3 Release Timeline

Development on the 3.x line began back in 2018, around the same time as the upcoming Jackson 3.x. Since then, the main branch has been losing ground and catching up with the 2.x branch in terms of bug fixes and new features—culminating in 3.0.0-beta3, which brings us very close to parity.

At this point, all planned 3.x features have been delivered. The remaining blocker for the official 3.0.0 release is porting over a final set of changes from 2.x.

As outlined in my March email, we are currently focused on the 2.25.0 release and do not have the bandwidth to finalize work on 3.x at this time.

🙋 How You Can Help

We welcome community contributions to help bring 3.0.0 across the finish line. Here’s how you can get involved:

🛠️ Port Changes from 2.x to 3.x

Issue #3161 lists items that were completed in 2.x but not yet ported to main. While some items (e.g., GraalVM support) are more complex, many are simple cherry-picks. Porting these will bring us closer to a final release.

🧪 Test the Beta Releases

We've released several 3.x betas, but user feedback has been limited. Testing these betas and reporting bugs—or even confirming smooth upgrades—would be incredibly valuable. We expect to publish at least one more beta before finalizing 3.0.0.

Your help could significantly accelerate the release.

Thanks for being part of the Log4j community!

[jluehe]

Yes, @ppkarwasz, I'd be more than happy to contribute a PR against the 2.x branch, in time for the 2.25.0 release! Please stay tuned!

[jluehe]

Created Issue #3686

[jluehe]

@ppkarwasz, for your review: #3690

[jluehe]

@ppkarwasz, can you tell me what is the ETA for the 2.25.0 release? Even an approximate date would help! Thanks!

[ppkarwasz]

You can follow the progress of release 2.25.0 in its dedicated mailing list thread.

[garydgregory]

And welcome to the pain and confusing we are forcing on our users with this confusing version policy 😞

[lockhartja]

@ppkarwasz Been using 3-Beta3 smoothly in a medium size application for the last ~10 months.....what channel should we be posting feedback

[ppkarwasz]

@lockhartja,

This discussion thread is the right place (it’s also mirrored on dev@logging, so the whole team will see it).

Have you encountered any issues with 3.0.0-beta3? From your experience, does it feel stable enough for a 3.0.0 release?

[lockhartja]

#@ppkarwasz missed your original question -- I have had Beta3 it our prod environment, running on over 2K server VMs (linux/windows) for nearly a year -- pretty standard workloads with the core feature sets of appenders, layouts, and plugins Console, JSONTemplate, and even Opentel -- very minimal issues to note and nothing that is a show stopper -- and all the issues I encountered have had documented workaround -- i.e. the ShadowJar and merging of service files -- bottom line, my only reason for periodically checking on the repository is to ensure I have the latest dependencies -- so my limited weighted opinion - a 3.0 release is a safe progression.

[ppkarwasz]

Thanks for the feedback!

While we have a lot of bug fixes and improvements to 2.x in our backlog, personally I will try to concentrate on the release of 3.x before we merge those improvements.

[rgoers]

@ppkarwasz What are we waiting on to do the initial GA release?

[ppkarwasz]

Hi @rgoers,

There are a couple of @jvz PRs that are waiting for an answer to the reviewer questions and merge. Otherwise, we could release 3.0.0 directly.

[vy]

@rgoers, there is a list of PRs that still need to be ported from 2.x to main, see #3161, plus Matt's PRs.