That suggestion is fine. My thinking here was that if the 1.3 release is going to take more time than we like, we may want to consider a small 1.2 release with the most "critical" or "desired" changes. But I am not suggesting we go crazy. Focus on a timely 1.3 release is better. I'd still like to hear Endre's (or others) suggestions either in an email, or an opened/reopened bug.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:05 PM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Reconsideration of features for 1.3 (Re: slf4j and log4j) > > One of the planned activities before the 1.3 beta 1 release is a review > of all open bug reports. I would assume the process would be to fix > all the simple ones, reject all the unrealistic ones and have a series > of vote on the debatable ones. > > Instead of having an unstructured discussion on desired features and > restarting a lot of previous discussions, it would likely be better to > mark the corresponding bug report as REOPENED and adding any new > comments or links to later discussions in the notes. I'd also suggest > that in this process, rejecting a REOPENED bug would require a vote. > > I'd prefer not to open the 1.2 line to any new features at this point, > but resolve the compatibility or stability issues that would hinder > migration to 1.3. However, if anyone has some feature that they > believe merits reopening the 1.2 line, they should start a new thread. > > On May 3, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Mark Womack wrote: > > > Endre, > > > > So, besides the trace level being put into the 1.2 branch, what other > > features are important that you feel we are not doing? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
