Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich, am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
> Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development > line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g., > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/. I would go with log4j and use version specific names, like 0.11.2, 0.12.0, 1.0.0 etc. > Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes, should > we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on > carnold's last commit? Yes. > If so, anyone want to take lead there when the > time comes? I would give it a try, but I would focus on formalism alone and wouldn't test anything myself. I currently simply don't have the environment to do so and in my opinion any real development should go into 0.12.0. Your linked examples of the release process contain statements about tests, so would it be ok to just ignore those things? From my point of view releasing the current status of the code with all the patches applied would be a reasonable goal. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Thorsten Schöning -- Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
