Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 99CBA11D90 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 01:49:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60243 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2014 01:49:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 60186 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2014 01:49:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 60176 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2014 01:49:51 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 01:49:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of boards@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.52] (HELO mail-oa0-f52.google.com) (209.85.219.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 01:49:46 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id o6so199184oag.11 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=epic8IE1Bl3O2YvsPuRgAZC2yRrp3RJn5BjAM7LG3h8=; b=AK12TgTH4S/lW8ewY5wTd7CwF3fAObVdydeRtynm/s044aF76fVR3drk6P3tktEIwV wBhdeieWm/RYFy6ciUjR+yFp2yMETGSgjlaFf2ayhx6YMEnWgkWBaydRW+tkAQvcU46L Wd8Booa2bdvhXubqPR5sqHYrx5SrKmCgZpjWHYFJpyYTjfVE8HVYPzqLbCK568ip9UPd ay/jKoVeV8eGNP23tyi/io0G/BG1yixrQtWA2o2ugNHM+gMEpV4OjH66XXDOk8cG6l3G birJCYbDzd/Vtb+JbfoMPC75FvZ0Y4qoLuUwyuyhYDDnJhghvwsn7KiE27pCBbooSqg1 qW+A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.81.200 with SMTP id c8mr576088oby.35.1407203366113; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.128.200 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <726D9B55-A7F9-4AB6-9C2A-2A55AADE0855@gmail.com> References: <726D9B55-A7F9-4AB6-9C2A-2A55AADE0855@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:49:26 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Which direction to focus on next? From: Matt Sicker To: Log4J Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e4e3ec3974104ffd810a8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b2e4e3ec3974104ffd810a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 http://www.coralblocks.com/index.php/2014/06/corallog-vs-log4j-latency-comparison/ On 4 August 2014 20:39, Remko Popma wrote: > Do you have a link? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/08/05, at 10:28, Matt Sicker 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 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 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > -- Matt Sicker --047d7b2e4e3ec3974104ffd810a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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 lik= e 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 curren= t features in 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new feature= s.

Gary


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.= com> wrote:
Are there any outstanding i= ssues 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&= #39;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 <board= s@gmail.com>



--



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
--047d7b2e4e3ec3974104ffd810a8--