Announcing Lucee 5.2.6 (Final)

Like voting in Chicago (#BornAndRaised), we like to ship Lucee early and often… so here’s another final release!

The final build of Lucee 5.2.6 ( is ready for download and use on production systems.

Here’s a peek at the change log:

There were no regressions reported during the February release candidate period, which is always good news, as we know we have a larger number of people deploying Lucee RCs quickly for testing. That’s a good sign of the ever-increasing stability and maturity of the codebase, but we always want more testers, so please do get in touch with us if you can help with testing during RC periods.

Next, the March sprint is underway, and it will produce Lucee 5.2.7-RC. We’ve got plenty of room for more tickets during March, so please let us know which favorite ticket(s) of yours you’d like us to tackle! So far in 2018, our staggering of release candidates and final releases looks to have improved productivity, as our rate of closing tickets has increased through the first couple of months.

Here’s to more of that!

Finally, another benefit of the better-focused development schedule in 2018 is more time to spend on “roadmap development”–new minor versions in particular. To this end, we’re prepping a beta release of 5.3!

At present our goal is to deliver that to the community in April. That said, we want to improve the way we support beta releases with better documentation, so we’re going to take our time to make sure the beta release (and docs) are as good as possible.

As always, thanks for listening, and thanks so much for your interest in Lucee!


The Docker images are good to go too :whale: (thanks @justincarter!)

Lucee on Tomcat 8.x

Lucee on Tomcat 8.x with NGINX

PS. we’re looking to move to Tomcat 9.x for Lucee 5.3

CommandBox Lucee servers are also published to ForgeBox for

server start cfengine=lucee

Given there’s a major breaking change in this stable release which accidentally slipped thru
the release process, and doesn’t even show up in the changelog, is a new release required?

we will address this asap, please stay tuned.

there is a new snapshot available reverting the change


5.3 will not revert that change

but what about a stable release?

Hi Zac. The can be considered a stable release. The reversion was a single-change build, reverting the problem behavior, on what was previously a final release (, which was a release candidate for a month.

I have updated ForgeBox to have the new release, but I renamed it ot be since CommandBox won’t install non-stable releases by default.

I don’t understand, why not flag as a stable release, how many lucee users
will update to what is being offered as a stable release only to find their sites not working?

tracking down such problems wastes developers time, i wasted three hours myself identifying that problem

Good job to the team! Of to to a strong start in 2018 already!

We’re looking forward to the next sprint RC as we are blocked by LDEV-1549 and can’t upgrade to at the moment.

Just throwing it out there that we noticed a small (I think?) issue with the fix in #1549, I have added a note to it already.


1 Like

Hey Zac. Sorry, I misunderstood your original question. I thought you were asking about getting a stable release for your own use, vs. for the community at large. Our first goal, of course, was to get a patch release out ASAP to whoever was affected. But you’re correct that we need to circle back and clean up the 5.2.6 branch so that nobody gets bit with the pre-patch version. We’re doing that now.

Hey @JF_Robichaud. As you probably saw by now, 1549 has been fixed as of the snapshot. You can grab and test now if you like, or, wait until the RC comes out after the end of the March sprint.


Yes I did, when I tested I found that it only partially fixed the issue.

That’s why I added a note afterward -

Edit: I don’t think there is a way for us to “reopen” issues once it’s marked as deployed.

Ah, sorry, I missed your last comment on the ticket. Yep, looks like we may have missed a test case there (no-content file). I’ve pinged the dev team to review.