I preferred 1 but am OK with 2. I didn't like 3 simply because the doc was talking about Log4j 2.0 and I quickly realized we would have a 2.1 and then the doc would be strange. So I shortened it to Log4j 2 and then thought it looked better as log4j2. It just seemed more natural to start numbering that at 1.0.
Also, 2.0 isn't binary compatible with 1.x (except for the log4j 1.x adapter - which can't be 100% compatible either), but that isn't unusual in a major release change.
On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: