You don't think we can get everything fixed in 2 days ;-) Yes - beta9.
Ralph On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > I hope you mean the next beta release and not 2.0. > > Gary > > On Aug 31, 2013, at 18:47, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what >>> label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a >>> beta out ASAP. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi >>>> issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may >>>> take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm >>>> currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P) >>>> >>>> 2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over >>>> beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to >>>> rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that >>>> RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen >>>> both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that >>>> for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for >>>> "8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for >>>> "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j >>>> 2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails. >>>> >>>> (I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.) >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >>>> >>>>> I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do >>>>> the first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move >>>>> on to "rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific >>>>> version - it isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for >>>>> 2.0-rc1 rc 1, or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done >>>>> something like 2.0RC1, which is a little better. However .... >>>>> >>>>> If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If >>>>> you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed >>>>> before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it >>>>> rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind. >>>>> >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly >>>>>> prefer rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>
