I, too, would prefer to release now and follow up with updates in the short term.
On 13 July 2014 23:35, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > I guess that means you won't be voting on the current release candidate? > Pretty much everyone else thinks it is time. If that is the case one of the > other PMC members will need to fail or the release vote will fail. > > For what it is worth, I have no problem with a 2.0.1 or 2.1 in a few weeks > if desired. I just think we have been stalling long enough. > > And I hope we continue to keep fixing things at the same, or better, pace. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 13, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd be ok with another RC. My ideal scenario is that an RC is released, > some time goes by without new bug reports and then the next RC becomes a > release. As things are now, we've fixed plenty since rc2. But hey that's > just me ;-) > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Bruce Brouwer > Date:07/13/2014 22:35 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: Next release > > Ok, the only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger > writing to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that > and think it worthy to go into the trunk, I'm pretty much on board with a > 2.0 release (unless you think a short lived rc3 is in order). > > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ok, this is starting to be simpler, as I'm sure you would all prefer. You >> can look at the branch LOG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the >> simplifications that I have made. >> >> 1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can decide if they >> want to do something with a status message in their log method. >> 2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to write >> to a file. >> 3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-api and into log4j-core, >> where we can probably get away with making more drastic changes to it in >> the future (so I can fix LOG4J-609) >> >> I have to check on the tests and stuff, but in general, I'm pretty happy >> with how small the impact is and in its ability to make a better solution >> for LOG4J-609 possible in the future. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This actually makes me wonder why you can configure the status logger >>> from a configuration file. Shouldn't this just be a system property or >>> something? >>> >>> >>> On 13 July 2014 18:57, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The listener can be removed, but nothing ever does. Right now it can >>>> never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level checking is >>>> cached in StatusLogger. If all you do is change the status level of the >>>> listener it has no effect on the cached value in StatusLogger. It may end >>>> up having no effect. >>>> >>>> This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my fix that I >>>> have been delinquent with. >>>> >>>> I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it makes sense in >>>> the next hour or two. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Bruce Brouwer >> about.me/bruce.brouwer >> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] >> <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> >> > > > > -- > > > Bruce Brouwer > about.me/bruce.brouwer > [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] > <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
