On Mar 2, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Mark Womack wrote:
I will be doing the build tomorrow night (3/2). If you have any
checkins or updates to the HISTORY.txt, please get them in before
6pm US Pacific time.
thanks,
-Mark
I saw that the Version class and versionInfo was added and it seems
undesirable to me as it breaks with Java platform conventions. I'll
add comments to the associated bug, but I think the right approach
would be to bring us closer to traditional Java version branding. It
has only been in the SVN for hours and haven't been engaged on the
issue, but it seems one that I would either -0 or -1 a release with
it in. I would suggest rolling back the Version stuff for now.
As far as I know the watchdog tests are still failing on the Gump
machine frequently. It seemed bad enough to put out one release
while Gump was failing but two seems a bit much.
The hyphens in the version designation in the jar and package names
confuse Maven, however calling it 1.3alpha9 or 1.3.alpha9 would avoid
the problem.
There were a couple of reports of known compatibility issues that had
not been addressed, particularly subclassing of PatternLayout,
o.a.l.RollingFileAppender, o.a.l.DailyRollingFileAppender, and
DOMConfigurator. For each of the classes, the current implementation
is substantially different and previous extension points are no
longer available. These were reported as compatibility issues in the
compatibility report, but that they were independently reported by
others from their testing suggests that they are not dismissible.
I don't think that it is desirable to release another alpha at this
point. In my mind an alpha is an implicit request for feedback from
a larger community and that we have not addressed the feedback from
alpha8 at all, I don't think it is desirable to put out an alpha9 at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
