Gmail is telling me about some other framework that is "18x less latency than Log4J 2.0". I'm surprised that the ads are already out like that! Looks like competition, guys. ;)
On 4 August 2014 20:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the > 2.0.1 vote that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling is > that our priority should be to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before adding > more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize the current features in > 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features. > > Gary > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 release, >> or should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because if we go >> the 2.1 route of focus, I've got a few branches to merge back together >> (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that regard) into trunk. >> >> As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 branch >> since we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary. >> >> -- >> 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 > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
