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: Which direction to focus on next?
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2014 01:39:54 GMT
Do you have a link?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2014/08/05, at 10:28, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Gmail is telling me about some other framework that is "18x less latency than Log4J 2.0".
I'm surprised that the ads are already out like that! Looks like competition, guys. ;)
> 
> 
>> On 4 August 2014 20:24, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the 2.0.1 vote
that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling is that our priority should be
to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before adding more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize
the current features in 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 release, or
should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because if we go the 2.1 route of focus,
I've got a few branches to merge back together (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that
regard) into trunk.
>>> 
>>> As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 branch since
we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

Mime
View raw message