yup 0.4 is fine as well.
I'd even say 0.8 or 0.9 is better ;) LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Matt Benson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:12 PM > Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate? > >G erhard pointed out to me that there may be other items we want to > look at (e.g. Apache* classnames) in addition to the logging > discussion before we call our implementation "baked enough for 1.0". > I tend to agree with him and will proceed with 0.4 to be followed with > a 1.0 in the near future, unless anyone disagrees. > > Matt > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^ >> >> Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;) >> >> We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this loudly > cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so. >> >> I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this discussion > over and over again on various projects. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM >>> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate? >>> >>> hi matt, >>> >>> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0 > already (if i >>> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the > logging >>> framework). >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to > see >>>> us make a release. It's been a long time since > 0.3-incubating, and >>>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having > moved >>>> to TLP. >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>> >
