I don't mind beta9 -> beta10 -> GA or beta9 -> GA, either is fine with me.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are we saying beta9 first, then a GA release? > > About outstanding issues: > There's one blocker Jiras about events getting dropped when AsyncAppender > are used in combination with RollingFile appender. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-315 > I'd like to get that fixed before the next beta but have trouble finding > time... > > There is also the request to provide configuration alternatives for the > system properties (although some of these may not be technically feasible). > Not sure how urgent that one is. > > > On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release - >> I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi >> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a >> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to >> release so I am OK with that. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on >> OSGi the best we can. >> >> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Gary >> >> -- >> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second >> Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >> >>
