I have no time to test, so my vote should probably be +0. However, since I have confidence in Curt and the other Log4j developers, if +1 is needed to make the release happen, you have my +1.
Jake Quoting Yoav Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > +1 to the release after some medium-strength testing (running it on a > dev server in an app that uses log4j for a couple of hours) and > looking at the distros. > > Two comments: > > On 9/14/06, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip /> > > If release of the vote passes, the archives will be renamed to remove > > the rc1 designation, digitally signed and moved to www.apache.org/ > > dist. To allow voters to vote on the exact binary images to be > > released, the archives have no internal indication that they are not > > the final 1.2.14. This is a break from previous practice where the > > final release was not identical to the release candidate. If the > > release candidates are accepted, the MD5 checksums for the releases > > should be identical to those listed above. > > I'm fine with this process, which has been used by other ASF projects > for a while. > > > The SVN tag corresponding to the release candidate is http:// > > svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/tags/v1_2_14. The build > > process has been modified to eliminate the dependency on the logging- > > site module, so there is no corresponding tag on that project. > > I think logging-site should be tagged anyhow, not because of a build > dependency, but to allow us and our users to recreate the log4j site > as it existed for a particular version of log4j. I personally have > found it useful in the past. Tags are essentially free, let's not > skimp on them. > > Yoav > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
