Any showstoppers left for anyone? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but not sure if it qualifies as a showstopper...
I'll see if I can find time to work on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but this is not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what we have now. Cheers, -Remko On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote: > > I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to the >> API. >> > > I would like to highlight that! > > Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-) > > Cheers > > > > >> Ralph >> >> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 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 >>> 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 > >
