This is going to sound similar my opinion about the 1.3/2.0 relabeling. I think we should at least do a 1.2.11 release to pick up Andy McBride's jms fix. I think we should consider some other *simple*, needed fixes. As much as it is wanted, I am not sure we should include the TRACE change, mainly because it might be a little unexpected for developers that have already implemented their own TRACE extension. I'm open to opinions on this.
However, I don't want to get bogged down doing 1.2.x releases. If we commit to a timely 1.3 release, then doing a lot in 1.2 will not be as big of an issue. I think we should be very committed and focused to getting the 1.3 release completed. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:04 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Interim minor release (1.2.11 or 1.4.0) > > The 1.2.x development branch has been locked down for quite a while > in anticipation of a forthcoming 1.3 release. It has been suggested > that a minor release from the 1.2.x branch that addresses more than > just critical bugs could be beneficial. If the log4j 1.3 development > is relabeled as log4j 2.0, then the minor release could be designated > 1.4.0 to avoid confusion with the earlier uses of 1.3. I think that > since the last few 1.2.x's have been very minor critical bug > releases, that it would be better not to designate the release as > 1.2.11. > > Would such as release be of value? What bug fixes or features should > go in a 1.4? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
