Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83211107A0 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29127 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2014 22:00:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29050 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2014 22:00:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 29042 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jan 2014 22:00:12 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:00:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of remko.popma@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.173] (HELO mail-ob0-f173.google.com) (209.85.214.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:00:08 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id vb8so7249178obc.32 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:59:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Xwkqc7L8i5kAqpXNH3PtIGtnc0G5vq7vISs21fuqYKQ=; b=nWjorRcPTsAzx8IAXjk/sMAP2Lmyn4zedbHxDPcsR52xwhp7ssM4EwKy5n9XpvJSPN yX5H4LPLWk4fAKBNqyCqc6tafCNonb39iejkmvs62KabyjXT7kNBKnwlQ6iYNOox4TlO K6anefM8w0ehhFMHP+2cWy6GaNxaVgYoympN5LfsJaau/05df/rHqfIVkHorAsHLXOb3 +kGfr/vOd1mkbJ06NM0X50KwG2J7aDXu4zAK7ivczq0tE8OmPtuV+fPH8jle92Iowzo6 qN4v7o4ACY8FbvS24//99wFJvEK+3bgf6PiTItban/zLPxMmrzJukLYbleL+nRQPw2Z/ lV0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.209.106 with SMTP id ml10mr4037826obc.31.1390859987330; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.113.175 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:59:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9366954F-5D91-4C6F-BA7B-CFB0FC087CB4@dslextreme.com> <233B8848-D184-471F-A3FE-0347EBC8F772@nicholaswilliams.net> <23627D27-F012-4C52-9044-A737657BA1C1@dslextreme.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:59:47 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GA? From: Remko Popma To: Log4J Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff250547a2cfe04f0fad39c X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8ff250547a2cfe04f0fad39c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 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 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 showstopp= er > 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 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 fo= r > 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 > 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 workin= g > on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels instead. > > While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don=92t 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');>> > --e89a8ff250547a2cfe04f0fad39c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about an=A0RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
then the GA relea= se say one month later?=A0

Keep in mi= nd we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even API changes in = 2.1 etc...=A0

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might hel= p spur some 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">

On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Grego= ry <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
So, yes, the new level API needs to go throu= gh 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 v= 2. 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&= gt; wrote:
Due to the API change I c= an 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 addr= essed. =A0I am sensing that you have a real reluctance to have Log4j 2 rele= ased as GA and I am trying to understand what the reason is.

Ralph
=

On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga= rydgregory@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 mon= th too long. Every two weeks seems pretty frequent for our bunch for a ramp= down.

Thoughts on that?

I am not so much c= oncerned about OSGi now since I look at this as more of a packaging issue a= nd 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 vot= e 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 L= evel 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 wrot= e:

I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448= , but neither of them are showstoppers IMHO.=A0

Remko=A0

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. =A0My list includes:
1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be disable= d 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=92t believe we w= ill be able to do that for GA.

Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels is requ= ired?

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> --e89a8ff250547a2cfe04f0fad39c--