Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC but the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many showstopper issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a real reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to understand what the reason is.
Ralph On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another Beta. > I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode. > > What about: > > - Now: Another Beta > - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1 > - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may be too > much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty frequent for our > bunch for a ramp down. > > Thoughts on that? > > I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as more of a > packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container with dependencies. > For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one bundle (jar) per appender? > > I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in servlet > environments. > > > Gary > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams > <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > 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 >> > > > > > -- > 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
