Hello, I would also prefer to have a release Version of libfastjson together with liblognormv2 and rsyslog. For my opinion this should be the most common usecase. Even this are 2 different packages the most users would use both of them from production perspective.
The current situtation is broken and I strongly support to leave this broken situtation as fast as possible, even if the Version is not Feature-complete. Usually it's not a big thing to wait a little longer for a release (even Feature requirements can be a big Driver). But from production point of view a stable situtation without broken compatibilities is much more worth for me. best regards, Chris 2016-05-24 14:11 GMT+02:00 Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]>: > 2016-05-24 13:06 GMT+02:00 Thomas D. <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> if it is not ready, don't release it. >> >> If you think that this release is important for the next rsyslog release >> (i.e. the rsyslog master already contains changes which require current >> libfastjson master so you would have to revert code from rsyslog just for >> the planned release) > > no, that's no problem at all > > feel free to delay the rsyslog release too when you >> know you only need 1-2 more weeks: That's what I was talking about when >> proposing the current release scheme... the 6 weeks aren't carved in stone. >> >> It should _help_ you by removing stress like "Oh, I don't get this into the >> upcoming release but I don't have to worry because the next release is >> already in sight" and not "Oh, if I don't get this done by date we will have >> to wait 6 more weeks..." > > Well... some folks wait since quite a while on liblognorm v2. It can > work with the libfastjson version that we now have. It is just not as > good as I had hoped it were at this point. And it is not tested as > well as I had hoped for (but still pretty good, e.g. the daily build > packages include everything since at least one month). > > Hope that clarifies and thanks for the comments. I think I'll postpone > if nobody says he would really like to have it with next weeks release > (holding rsyslog for that reason I think makes no sense, especially as > we have some good patches inside the version). > > Thanks again Peter and Thomas, > Rainer > > >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Thomas >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rsyslog mailing list >> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog >> http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ >> What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards >> NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of >> sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T >> LIKE THAT. > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ > What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards > NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of > sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T > LIKE THAT. _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
