Do you have a link? Sent from my iPhone
> On 2014/08/05, at 10:28, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >> Spring Batch in Action >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
