On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]>wrote:

> 1. I prefer trunk to be the stable branch.  In addition to the 2.0 tag I
> would also cut a branch when 2.0 is finally released.
>

+1, ideally we can cut releases at any time out of trunk for log4j.
Experimentation can be done in branches.

Gary


>
> 2. I could swear we have always generated the OSGi MANIFEST.MF and people
> said it wasn’t sufficient, but if they aren’t there then I guess I am wrong.
>
> 3. I would like to see a list of what would be broken out before we
> actually do it.
>
> 4. I’d like to see 2.0 GA asap, so I agree.
>
> 5. A release can be cut at any time. We don’t vote to perform a release,
> we vote that the release is good to go public.
>
> 6. The Marker stuff is done, except for removing the deprecated APIs. We
> need to finalize the logo.  I don’t know if any outstanding issues are
> blockers.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've got a few topics to mention.
>
> 1. Should we consider making a 2.0 release branch so that trunk can
> continue to be the active development branch? That way we can work on new
> things while just ironing out the remaining issues for 2.0 GA in the 2.0
> branch. Unless you guys prefer a different branching workflow like trunk
> being the stable branch, and then using feature branches.
>
> 2. OSGi support. What I'm thinking will be the easiest way to get this
> working correctly without having to worry so much about duplicating bundles
> would be to simply drop the log4j-osgi modules and just add the OSGi
> MANIFEST.MF metadata to our normal releases. This would effectively be good
> enough for supporting OSGi bundles in that regard. We can figure out how to
> trim down log4j-core independently of anything OSGi. I've already began
> work on this by updating the poms for log4j, log4j-api, and log4j-1.2-api.
> I'll update the other smaller modules to reflect the updated build process
> as well. There may be a slight issue with the log4j-slf4j-impl module due
> to how SLF4J expects implementations to be packaged, so I'll take a look
> into that as well (and possibly go complain to them if necessary). In fact,
> supporting OSGi for some of these modules might not be possible due to
> package splits and backwards compatibility.
>
> 3. Essentially, I'm thinking that we could separate out all the parts of
> log4j-core that use external dependencies with the exception of AsyncLogger
> (we could potentially fork lmax-disruptor into our own repository similar
> to how Tomcat handles some of their dependencies). That way, we don't need
> to worry about optional dependencies, either, because when they're split
> up, the new modules can have required dependencies instead (whether it be
> an API or a concrete library). If there are any other parts of log4j-core
> that rely on external dependencies that we think are popular enough to keep
> in log4j-core, please share.
>
> 4. Due to how new these modules are, I'm proposing that log4j-streams and
> log4j-camel both be slated for release in 2.1 or some future release.
> Otherwise, these might hold back our 2.0 release a little bit. Where we
> place the code depends on (1) (keep in trunk or make feature branches). Of
> course, both modules are independently up for vote on whether to include
> them in 2.0. Since I added the log4j-camel module as a sort of experimental
> module largely based on the log module in camel-core (which uses SLF4J
> instead), I'd like to see this part in 2.1, but not in 2.0 since I've
> barely tested it yet (and still need to port more tests to it along with
> some integration testing).
>
> 5. After addressing the modules thing from (3), we should probably vote on
> an RC2 release sometime soon. I'd propose releasing RC2 in the beginning of
> May, but I'm open for whenever.
>
> 6. What else is left for 2.0? The updated Marker API is almost complete
> (we have our own code that needs to be updated to not use the deprecated
> APIs, but that might only be unit tests at this point).
> --
> Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
>
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected]
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

Reply via email to