OK. Step no. 1 is something only I can do. And for that I need to push the new web site + sphinx-doc generated documentation. And do a release of the current state at the same time. I have ~80% of work done (see "docs" branch), and i have a working prototype of the new web site which I have not yet committed anywhere.
Now I just need to find time to do this... Regards, Ivan On 26 November 2013 10:33, Sven Rautenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Change is inevitable. :) > > I agree a quick 3.0 might not add very much value, but on the other hand > discussing the internal naming and renaming of classes also does not add > external value. > > One could change to PSR-0, but would this actually change the public > interface? Or is this something considered internal refactoring? > > Anyway, I'd like to have tagged experimental versions as soon as possible > for my own integration of Log4php. ;) > > > > > Ivan Habunek <[email protected]> schrieb: >> >> Hi Sven, nice to have you aboard. >> >> I don't thing it's a good idea to release a final 3.0 version which >> will change a lot in future versions. And if we just tack on >> namespaces to current class naming scheme, that would need to be >> changed in the future. I think it's worth putting in a little more >> effort into a 3.0 release. At the very least, we should fix class >> naming so it's e.g. Apache\Log4php\Layouts\PatternLayout instead of >> LoggerLayoutPattern. >> >> If we do go down the quick & dirty path (which is tempting, since it's >> progress and is within reach), then I would much prefer to call the >> result 3.0 alpha 1, and have more iterations before releasing the >> final product. We don't need to rush, but we need to break this down >> to small steps otherwise we'll get stuck again. >> >> Concerning the 2.x branch, I'd like to keep it active parallel with >> 3.x. We'd can just copy the current master & develop branches to >> master-2.x and develop-2.x (or something similar, don't know if >> there's a standard naming scheme for this). This way we can later >> release new versions of 2.x if needed. >> >> PSR-2, as you said, is not a problem. >> >> BTW, If my life goes according to plan (which it never does), I might >> have more time to work on log4php sometime early next year. Until then >> I'll try to invest time into managing the project, and start the work >> towards 3.0 with your and others' help. >> >> Regards, >> Ivan >> >> On 26 November 2013 09:28, Sven Rautenberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry to step right into your discussion. >>> >>> I'd propose this: >>> >>> 1. Merge the current three branches somehow into a "current" version and >>> release the accumulated fixes as 2.3.1 or 2.4.0 depending on the changes. >>> >>> 2. Then decide to move on to 3.0 and apply PSR-2 coding style. There is a >>> style fixer available from Fabienne Potencier - a one time call&commit >>> effort. >>> >>> 3. Only then I'd go and just add a genuine namespace to all classes >>> without >>> any other change. >>> >>> 4. Now add PSR-3 logger. Probably change the internal levels, too. >>> >>> 5. Release 3.0. ;) >>> >>> 6. Only now think about features helping with PSR-3. >>> >>> This shouldn't take very much time. I'd try to help where I can, but >>> point 1 >>> is keeping me from having done the rest as a pull request already. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ivan Habunek <[email protected]> schrieb: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, it's been a while... >>>> >>>> Dmitriy Ulyanov contacted me and said he's interested in continuing >>>> work on log4php. I'd like to continue the discussion here on the >>>> mailing list. >>>> >>>> So, Dmitriy, what approach did you have in mind? For starters, did you >>>> plan on working on 3.0 release (a rewrite which would feature >>>> namespaces and PSR-3 support), or do you prefer working further on >>>> 2.3? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Sven Rautenberg > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > Sven Rautenberg
