Generally, the release number and release date dictate themselves. Since we
use semantic versioning we only increase the second number when a
non-insignificant feature is added (I didn’t use significant on purpose as some
features aren’t really significant but they aren’t insignificant either).
I'd say we're done with 2.6. I'm finishing up the async appender updates
(still working on documentation updates, but the code is pretty stable at
this point).
On 21 July 2016 at 06:45, Mikael Ståldal wrote:
> Are we now done with 2.6.x, and heading towards 2.7 in a few months?
>
> --
> [image:
Are we now done with 2.6.x, and heading towards 2.7 in a few months?
--
[image: MagineTV]
*Mikael Ståldal*
Senior software developer
*Magine TV*
mikael.stal...@magine.com
Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com
Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be containe
On Aug 13, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
The recent release build environment is a JDK 1.4 javac targeting
JDK 1.1 bytecode. If the Geronimo jars contain JDK 1.5 bytecode,
they won't work with JDK 1.4 compilers. Not sure, but I suspect
that might be the case. Compilers in late
The recent release build environment is a JDK 1.4 javac targeting
JDK 1.1 bytecode. If the Geronimo jars contain JDK 1.5 bytecode,
they won't work with JDK 1.4 compilers. Not sure, but I suspect
that might be the case. Compilers in later JDKs don't support
generating JDK 1.1 bytecode
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:27 AM, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
Curt Arnold skrev den 13-08-2008 07:16:
I've thinking it is likely that we may run into problems with the
geronimo artifacts on earlier JVM's. May have to hack the pom.xml
and rebuild to get compatible bytecode.
The geronimo ar
On 13/08/2008, at 3:16 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
I'd like to address the following bugs and then get an RC1 for log4j
1.2.16 out
For consideration:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43282 (OSGI
packaging info - seems trivial.. ?)
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug
On 13/08/2008, at 19:27, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Curt Arnold skrev den 13-08-2008 07:16:
I've thinking it is likely that we may run into problems with the
geronimo artifacts on earlier JVM's. May have to hack the pom.xml
and rebuild to get compatible byt
Curt Arnold skrev den 13-08-2008 07:16:
I've thinking it is likely that we may run into problems with the
geronimo artifacts on earlier JVM's. May have to hack the pom.xml and
rebuild to get compatible bytecode.
The geronimo artifacts are only used for building, not running.
Shouldn't that
I'd like to address the following bugs and then get an RC1 for log4j
1.2.16 out
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37638
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44157
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44386
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
The ASF board meeting that was originally scheduled for day was
pushed back to the 29th. We've had increasing traffic on the user's
list about the extras companion and new users jumping into log4j 1.3
since it appears to be the latest and greatest. I think it would be
good if we could get
Build Manager: Mark Womack and I have nearly identical build
systems. I've used mine to verify that the last few releases have
been repeatable aside from a few timestamps in generated
documentation). If Mark doesn't want to be release manager for this
release, I'd be willing to do it.
A
I've been out of touch for way too long, and so I
am wondering if there is a current plan in place for the release of log4j
1.3? If not, I am willing to work on creating one. Even if we don't
have specific dates for milestones, if we can come up with a list of required
actions to be taken,
13 matches
Mail list logo
