I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that they are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation.
If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on the basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week has expired. Thoughts? -Stephen On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote: > As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't > want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a > problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick > that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a > lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. > > In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already > have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like > to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse > Aether integrated. > > If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is > going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I > would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > feedback and adjust if necessary. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > >
