That makes sense. Thanks Gary and Nick for clarifying my statement.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Nick Williams < nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote: > I'm fine with an RC this week and a GA one month later. I think that's > perfect. I agree with Remko that we can have API /additions/ in 2.1 (or, at > any time, IMO), but I agree with Gary that we can't have binary > compatibility-breaking changes until 3.0. > > N > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major > release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate changes). > > Gary > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed), >> then the GA release say one month later? >> >> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even API >> changes in 2.1 etc... >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur some >>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version. >>> >>> >>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release. Aside >>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work it will >>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just an >>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else. >>> >>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try and >>> use the new level system... >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers < >>> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > >
