Hi, I largely agree with Jacob and Elias. However, I don't like the 1.4/1.5 discussion: jumping version numbers confuses users, as I found out first hand with Tomcat, even when there's good reasoning for it.
> > 1) Release 1.2.11 with JMS build fix, maybe some other critical fixes > > (action item: determine the other fixes). Timeframe is almost > immediate, > > within the next 2 weeks. +1. > > 2) Abandon the 1.3 version number, the main branch becomes version 1.5 > > below. -0. > > 3) Release a 1.4 version with the TRACE change and other fixes that will > > make life happier for the user base (action item: determine the other > > changes). No major structural changes. Just most "important" bugfixes. > > The base of the 1.4 code would start from the v1_2branch. Timeframe is > > within a month of the 1.2.11 release. I'd like 1.3 = 1.2 + TRACE. I'm also OK with 1.2.12 = 1.2.11 + TRACE. But no 1.4/1.5. > > 4) Release a 1.5 version based on the current main branch. This would > be > > what we are calling v1.3 today. Timeframe: release of first final > version > > by 10/2005. Confusing. > > > > Exact timeline for the 1.5 version is TBD, but I think we have discussed > the > > basics. I am not proposing we change the version to 2.0. Again, to me > that > > means much bigger changes, and we should reserve that version number for > > when we want to make the bigger changes. These (Domains, Joran, etc.) ARE huge changes, easily sufficient for a 2.0 version number IMHO. Note, however, that my -0's are just that, and not -1's. I don't have sufficient time commitment that I feel comfortable jinxing someone else's efforts. Whatever we do, when this vote/discussion concludes, I'd like our action plan to be posted on log4j-user and the web site. Yoav --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
