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
