If people really thing that another non-GA release is necessary, please
label it RC.
Beta sounds as log4j2 is absolutely not ready but this isn't the case.
At least with a RC we show some confidence in what we do.
As additions are easier to make then removals, I would even sacrifice
something from the LogLevels enhancement
if it can be added later without breaking BC.
Personally I think it is necessary to make a GA as soon as possible.
People ask me a lot
about when we do become GA. Looks like folks don't like to use *beta
software
or even take it serious.
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, Ralph Goers wrote:
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
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
