http://www.coralblocks.com/index.php/2014/06/corallog-vs-log4j-latency-comparison/


On 4 August 2014 20:39, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
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>



--



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>