I am not sure why making the StatusLogger better at closing files should cause compatibility problems. I really wish it didn't have to be in the API since it is really meant to be for internal use.
Sent from my iPad > On Jul 12, 2014, at 7:04 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What about binary compatibility? > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Remko Popma > Date:07/12/2014 08:31 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: Next release > > I would really like to do the 2.0 release vote this weekend. > Bruce, based on what I've seen from the patch, the API changes you have in > mind will not be very disruptive (as you already mentioned). > If addressing this issue will take some time, I would prefer to release 2.0 > this weekend and do the fix in an upcoming release. > (And of course creating a branch is always fine.) > > >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Shall I make a branch for this and check in what I have? If we really want >> to push to get this out soon maybe someone else could help out on the branch. >> >>> On Jul 11, 2014 11:30 PM, "Gary Gregory" <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Sure looks like worth fixing. Leaks are nasty, even if it is a corner case, >>> someone will hit it. Unfortunately I have no time this weekend. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Bruce Brouwer >>> Date:07/11/2014 23:11 (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Log4J Developers List >>> Subject: Re: Next release >>> >>> I know I haven't had time to spend on this project lately, but I never >>> finished off LOG4J2-609. If you're itching to release this weekend, then I >>> won't be able to get this done. The solution I'm presenting is a little bit >>> invasive in the "API", but I think the current solution has some real >>> problems. The details are in the JIRA. I only bring it up in case you think >>> this area of the API should not be allowed to change after 2.0. It is kind >>> of off in a corner where most people won't go, so maybe it will be >>> acceptable to fix for a 2.1 release. Where it stands right now, I don't >>> have the tests working, which I now thing is showing a problem with >>> something in my solution. >>> >>> What are your thoughts? >>> >>> Other than that, I would really like to see 2.0 released. >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Friday, July 11, 2014, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> No objection at all! >>>>> >>>>> I would like to add the tool to generate Custom/Extended Loggers, and do >>>>> a doc fix for LOG4J2-631. >>>> >>>> Done with these changes. >>>>> >>>>> Also, the site now has an empty section "Custom Plugins" under manual > >>>>> Extending Log4j. Shall we remove that before the release? >>>> >>>> I haven't had time to do this. I may not have time today either. Perhaps >>>> not that urgent anyway... >>>> >>>> One more thing (gentle reminder): let's not forget to change to the new >>>> logo. :-) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> > On 2014/07/11, at 15:50, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I would like to do the release for Log4j 2.0 this weekend. Are there >>>>> > any objections? >>>>> > >>>>> > Ralph >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Bruce Brouwer >>> about.me/bruce.brouwer >>> >>> >
