logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christian Grobmeier" <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GA?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:17:52 GMT
If people really thing that another non-GA release is necessary, please 
label it RC.

Beta sounds as log4j2 is absolutely not ready but this isn't the case.
At least with a RC we show some confidence in what we do.

As additions are easier to make then removals, I would even sacrifice 
something from the LogLevels enhancement
if it can be added later without breaking BC.

Personally I think it is necessary to make a GA as soon as possible. 
People ask me a lot
about when we do become GA. Looks like folks don't like to use *beta 
or even take it serious.

On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, Ralph Goers wrote:

> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC 
> but the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many 
> showstopper issues that need to be addressed.  I am sensing that you 
> have a real reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying 
> to understand what the reason is.
> Ralph
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another 
>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>> What about:
>> - Now: Another Beta
>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may 
>> be too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty 
>> frequent for our bunch for a ramp down.
>> Thoughts on that?
>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as 
>> more of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container 
>> with dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one 
>> bundle (jar) per appender?
>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in 
>> servlet environments.
>> Gary
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams 
>> <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just 
>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would be 
>> a shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that 
>> caused us to need to change the API to fix it.
>> Nick
>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are 
>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>> Remko
>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers 
>>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out 
>>> what are blockers to a GA release.  My list includes:
>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be 
>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on 
>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels 
>>> instead.
>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don’t 
>>> believe we will be able to do that for GA.
>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels 
>>> is required?
>>> Ralph
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message