I don't really get tired of cutting releases. I just want people to know we believe the code is usable. ASIs the case with all software - or almost everything in life - it will never be perfect.
Ralph > On Jul 15, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Easy for me to say 'do another RC' since I am not the RM but there is no harm > in doing a RC3, if anything it shows we are getting our ducks in a row before > GA. My experience RM'ing for Commons, HttpComponents and Xalan is that it is > a pain in the you know what, so I won't hold it against Ralph if he is tried > of cutting releases ;-) > > Gary > > >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> I am thinking I will commit my changes for 609 to the trunk tonight (unless >> i hear otherwise) to get it included in 2.0. The impact to -api is pretty >> small so I will leave it to you to decide if we need an rc3. My vote is we >> do. With this change I consider 609 to be resolved. >> >>> On Jul 14, 2014 5:42 PM, "Bruce Brouwer" <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In the latest stuff in my branch, the biggest change in api is >>> StatusConsoleListener moved to -core >>> >>>> On Jul 14, 2014 1:23 PM, "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>> StatusLogger is public in the sense that user written components will use >>>> it. But all we really expose to components there is the >>>> StatusLogger.getLogger() and the Logger interface. The other public >>>> methods there are for JMX and the configuration to access the status data. >>>> Nothing else under the status package is really public. >>>> >>>> I haven’t looked at Bruce’s changes yet but I can’t imagine how they would >>>> result in API breakage. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we break binary compatibility then we should change the package name. >>>>> This is to avoid well know jar hell issues. What we need to decide is >>>>> which APIs are really public. For example in Commons, all public APIs are >>>>> part of the binary compatibility agreement we've made. We now have lang3, >>>>> pool2, dbcp2, for example. Looking ahead to not breaking binary >>>>> compatibility is why I think we need to be sure we agree now on what the >>>>> public API is. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Remko Popma >>>>> Date:07/14/2014 12:43 (GMT-05:00) >>>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release >>>>> >>>>> Bruce, I've done an initial review of the LOG4J2-609 branch and posted >>>>> some comments in the Jira. >>>>> >>>>> Gary, I'm not in principle against changes to the API module in post-2.0 >>>>> releases. Changes need to have enough merit to justify them, but if they >>>>> do, then making these changes before or after 2.0 doesn't matter that >>>>> much to me. We've been in beta so long that I'm sure we have quite a few >>>>> users already, so to me we are live already. >>>>> >>>>> I do appreciate you want it to be as close to perfect as we can make it. >>>>> But I also agree with the others that releasing a GA version now won't >>>>> prevent us from making further improvements. >>>>> >>>>> By the way, when I told some people at work that we're close to the 2.0 >>>>> release, their first impression was: "finally!" :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'll give the VOTE a review of course but I do not see the harm in >>>>>> another RC since we will be setting the API in stone as soon as 2.0 is >>>>>> out. We also have only one shot at a first impression. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>> From: Ralph Goers >>>>>> Date:07/14/2014 00:35 (GMT-05:00) >>>>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>>>> Cc: Logging PMC >>>>>> Subject: Re: Next release >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruce Brouwer >>>>>>> about.me/bruce.brouwer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > > -- > 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
