I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down, because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I believe it should be rc1. This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means. If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want? Nick On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target the > following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is required > for a GA release. > > Ralph > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: >> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release - I'd >> prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi >> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a >> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to >> release so I am OK with that. >> >> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank >> you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another >> beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some >> new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just >> sayin... ;) >> >> Gary >> >> >> Ralph >> >> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on OSGi >>> the best we can. >>> >>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>> Spring Batch in Action >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >> Spring Batch in Action >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
