I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would be a shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that caused us to need to change the API to fix it.
Nick On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are showstoppers IMHO. > > Remko > > On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out what are > blockers to a GA release. My list includes: > 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be disabled > from automatically happening in a 3.0 container. > 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on working on > that this weekend but worked on the custom levels instead. > > While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don’t believe we will > be able to do that for GA. > > Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels is > required? > > Ralph > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >
