commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release RC10 As Commons Logging 1.1
Date Wed, 03 May 2006 20:32:59 GMT
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 22:27 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
>> Hi,
>> To save people reading through below, my summary is:
>> <summary>
>> Some excellent proofreading here, and a number of doc/release-notes
>> issues have been found by Dennis, as well as a case where we could use
>> constants instead of inline strings, and one where we should technically
>> be using a param value instead of a constant in a diagnostic message
>> (though it doesn't matter in that case anyway).
>> However I don't see anything here that I think is worth cancelling the
>> RC10 vote for. A few items would be good to put up on the wiki under
>> "1.1 release addendum".
> an interesting one, this
> the release process we use here in the commons (release candidates
> rather than blessing a concrete distribution) means that there are
> always changes between the final release candidate and the release
> distributed. the question is what changes are acceptable and which
> necessitate another VOTE. 
> we already have changes to the documentation and some to the code
> formatting committed. more changes (as outlined by dennis) shouldn't
> really effect the result: either no changes above the minimum version
> changes are acceptable or cosmetic and documentation ones are.
> it feels like a long, long we've travelled. after all this effort, i
> think one final push is worth it. given the fact that the changes are
> cosmetic and documentation, i think i'll cut one more candidate tomorrow
> but propose a short length for the vote. 


None of the changes that I have committed affect the actual running code 
of JCL. The changes made are:
- Corrections and additions to JavaDoc
- Corrections to documentation (xdocs)
- Code formating regarding white space (transforming tabs into spaces)

I deliberately did not check in the proposed *code* changes in 
LogFactory and LogFactoryImpl. As Simon correctly stated they really 
don't bring any added value. They are more design issues.

Also I have not committed the proposed changes/additions to the 
RELEASE_NOTES.txt. If there will be another RC then these changes should 
be committed.
- Upgrade recommendations for the api jar (Tomcat vs all others)
- The api jar still contains Jdk14Logger
- AvalonLogger no longer implements serializable

Dennis Lundberg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message