logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GA?
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:59:47 GMT
How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
then the GA release say one month later?

Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even API
changes in 2.1 etc...

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur some 3rd
> party development to integrate with the new version.
>
>
> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release. Aside
> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work it will
> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just an
> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>
> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try and
> use the new level system...
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'boards@gmail.com');>>
>

Mime
View raw message