logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Which direction to focus on next?
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:21:26 GMT
1. If we are going to have all of these branches I am wondering if we should move to git. I
am not an expert but I know branching and merging is easier with it.
2. I would recommend going through Jira issues. We should categorize them by a) bug vs feature
request, b) patch vs no patch, c) impact of solution (change to existing behavior, new config
options, etc.)

Right now I think there is plenty to do that users haze asked for.

Ralph

> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Matt. 
> 
> Gary, Ralph, what do you think?
> Where should we work on new features? I see these options:
> 
> 1. Don't work on new features, or keep new features on our local machines, don't commit
to apache svn. (TBD: until when?)
> 
> 2. Everyone creates separate branches for new features they want to work on. So Remko
would have a binary logging/memmap branch, and a branch for deleting old rolled-over files,
Matt would have a jdbc-batched-inserts branch, etc. Bugfixes go into trunk. Everyone is free
to sync their branch(es) with trunk's bugfixes or not. 
> 
> 3. We create a shared 2.1 branch for new features. Bugfixes go into trunk as well as
the 2.1 branch. 
> 
> 4. Both new features and bugfixes are committed to trunk. No branches needed. 
> 
> 5. The opposite of option 3: we create a 2.0.2 branch that holds bugfixes only. Trunk
has both new features and bugfixes. 
> 
> 6. Any alternatives that I missed?
> 
> Gary, in the past you mentioned you don't like the busywork of maintaining two branches.
I'm fine with that, but to me that means new features can go into trunk, because I really
don't like option 1...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 2014/08/05, at 11:31, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think we can easily do bug fixes from the tag.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 August 2014 21:15, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, the thing is, I've been holding back on this and prioritized bugfixes for
over a year now in order to get 2.0 out the door. I've really been looking forward to working
on these new things. 
>>> 
>>> So what am I supposed to do? There will never be an end to new bugs being reported.

>>> 
>>> Not happy,
>>> Remko...
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 2014/08/05, at 10:24, 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