logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next release
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2014 05:45:38 GMT
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