On 13 July 2014 23:35, Ralph Goers &l= t;rgoers@apache.org<= /a>> wrote:

I guess that means yo= u won't be voting on the current release candidate? Pretty much everyon= e 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. =C2=A0I just think we have been stalling lo= ng enough.

And I hope we continue to keep fixing t= hings 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 rele= ased, some time goes by without new bug reports and then the next RC become= s a release. As things are now, we've fixed plenty since rc2. But hey t= hat's just me ;-)

Gary

-------- Original message --------
From: Bruce Brouwer
Date:07/13/2014 22:3= 5 (GMT-05:00)
To: Log4J Developers List

Subject: Re: Next release

Ok, th= e only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger writi= ng to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that and thi= nk 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).=C2=A0

On Sun, Jul 1= 3, 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 L= OG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the simplifications that I have made.<= div>
1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can deci= de if they want to do something with a status message in their log method.= =C2=A0

2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to writ= e to a file.=C2=A0
3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-= api and into log4j-core, where we can probably get away with making more dr= astic 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 ma= ke a better solution for LOG4J-609 possible in the future.=C2=A0

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 st= atus 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 no= w it can never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level check= ing 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 e= nd up having no effect.

This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my f= ix that I have been delinquent with.

I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it make= s sense in the next hour or two.

--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

--=

<= /tr>

=C2=A0

Bruce Brouwer
about.me/bruce.brouwer

=C2=A0

--

<= /tr>

=C2=A0

Bruce Brouwer
about.me/bruce.brouwer

=C2=A0