logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: Towards a 2.1 release
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:40:18 GMT
A beta release is exactly the same as a “regular” release. Just change the version in the
pom to 2.1-beta1.

As for getting multiple versions on the site, other projects do that. Maven does it for older
versions.  It should just be a matter of copying the template they use.

IMO the only reason to do a beta is if their are new features that we consider to be not-quite-ready
for production.  On the other hand, I consider an RC to be believed to be production ready
but requiring additional feedback.  FWIW - I find RCs a bit confusing since we vote on a “release
candidate” with every release.

Ralph

On Sep 23, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps we can all take time until this weekend to clean up and polish before you cut
an RC... on Friday?
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know that the work I was doing on log4j-web can wait for 2.2, so no objections for
going ahead with 2.1 from me.
> 
> On 22 September 2014 19:25, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gary mentioned that in Commons they have multiple versions on the site so he suggested
using that profile/maven plugin. That said, this may not be easy and will probably be significant
work. 
> 
> As Gary said, we're all in agreement we can do a 2.1 release, so there's no need to look
into the implications of the beta idea further. 
> 
> Are there any items we still want to include in this release?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2014/09/23, at 8:25, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Matt, 
>> 
>> It seems like the consensus is to skip a beta.
>> 
>> You may want to send a [poll] email and get a more formal feel for it.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How would I even be able to release the beta artifacts? The "release" profile doesn't
seem appropriate.
>> 
>> On 22 September 2014 12:15, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm also fine with just doing a 2.1 and following up with 2.1.x releases if issues
are found.
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless we have some way to have more than one release on the site, making it 2.1
might be our best bet.
>> 
>> On 22 September 2014 11:01, Remko Popma <remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we need to have a 2.1-beta release, or shall we just do a 2.1 release (and follow
up with 2.1.1 etc if issues are found)?
>> 
>> When are we aiming to do this release?
>> 
>> There are still ~10 open Jira tickets targetting 2.1. 
>> Please take a look to see if that list is up to date. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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


Mime
View raw message