On Feb 8, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> > wrote: > Well, unfortunately my first release attempt didn't turn out so well. The > vote for Log4j 2.0-rc1 RC1 has been canceled: > > - There are unsupported licenses. I will fix those shortly. > I've fixed the two missing license headers that Gary mentioned. Still need to > check if there are other license issues.
Yes, but you fixed one of the incorrectly. :-) I have fixed it. > > - There might be something pointing to rc2 instead of rc1. I'll look into > that. > I think that was a misunderstanding: you renamed the versions in the pom.xml > files to prepare for the next release (you were following the steps in the > ReleaseProcedure). Gary updated his local workspace and saw these rc2 > versions. I don't think there was any problem there. Correct. I confirmed that upon further examination. > > > Gary also pointed out LOG4J2-531, reported within the last 24 hours. I don't > think this is a show-stopper to rc1. We can roll rc2 soon, but it has been > months since a release and I don't want to hold this up. Is anyone going to > object to a release without a fix for LOG4J2-531? > I agree this should not be a showstopper. IMHO only a bug _introduced_ by the > release would be a reason to cancel that release. This is an existing issue. > (I have started investigating LOG4J2-531. It may not be a simple bugfix; it > may be more involved - and take more time to do it right. All the more reason > not to hold up the release for this.) > > > Nick > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > >
