logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next release
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:39:46 GMT
My preference is to do another rc build if my changes go in. But I also
feel bad for stalling myself.
On Jul 14, 2014 1:46 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

> I, too, would prefer to release now and follow up with updates in the
> short term.
>
>
> On 13 July 2014 23:35, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I guess that means you won't be voting on the current release candidate?
>> Pretty much everyone else thinks it is time. If that is the case one of the
>> other PMC members will need to fail or the release vote will fail.
>>
>> For what it is worth, I have no problem with a 2.0.1 or 2.1 in a few
>> weeks if desired.  I just think we have been stalling long enough.
>>
>> And I hope we continue to keep fixing things at the same, or better, pace.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd be ok with another RC. My ideal scenario is that an RC is released,
>> some time goes by without new bug reports and then the next RC becomes a
>> release. As things are now, we've fixed plenty since rc2. But hey that's
>> just me ;-)
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Bruce Brouwer
>> Date:07/13/2014 22:35 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Log4J Developers List
>> Subject: Re: Next release
>>
>> Ok, the only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger
>> writing to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that
>> and think it worthy to go into the trunk, I'm pretty much on board with a
>> 2.0 release (unless you think a short lived rc3 is in order).
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brouwer@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, this is starting to be simpler, as I'm sure you would all prefer.
>>> You can look at the branch LOG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the
>>> simplifications that I have made.
>>>
>>> 1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can decide if they
>>> want to do something with a status message in their log method.
>>> 2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to write
>>> to a file.
>>> 3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-api and into log4j-core,
>>> where we can probably get away with making more drastic changes to it in
>>> the future (so I can fix LOG4J-609)
>>>
>>> I have to check on the tests and stuff, but in general, I'm pretty happy
>>> with how small the impact is and in its ability to make a better solution
>>> for LOG4J-609 possible in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This actually makes me wonder why you can configure the status logger
>>>> from a configuration file. Shouldn't this just be a system property or
>>>> something?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 July 2014 18:57, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brouwer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The listener can be removed, but nothing ever does. Right now it can
>>>>> never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level checking
is
>>>>> cached in StatusLogger. If all you do is change the status level of the
>>>>> listener it has no effect on the cached value in StatusLogger. It may
end
>>>>> up having no effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my fix that I
>>>>> have been delinquent with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it makes sense in
>>>>> the next hour or two.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce Brouwer
>>> about.me/bruce.brouwer
>>> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me]
>>>    <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Bruce Brouwer
>> about.me/bruce.brouwer
>> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me]
>>    <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>

Mime
View raw message