Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday.

Ralph

On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what 
> label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a beta 
> out ASAP. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi 
>> issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may 
>> take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm 
>> currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
>> 
>> 2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over 
>> beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to 
>> rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that RC1/2/3/4/5 
>> is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen both 2.0.0-RC1 
>> and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that for the Tomcat 
>> 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for "8.0.0-RC1." They didn't 
>> vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 
>> 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be 
>> appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
>> 
>> (I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>>> I simply have a problem with the string "rc1".  For every release we do the 
>>> first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to 
>>> "rc 2".  In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it 
>>> isn't a version itself.  I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1, 
>>> or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2.  A few other projects have done something like 
>>> 2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
>>> 
>>> If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0.  If 
>>> you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed 
>>> before we can do a 2.0 release.  What will we really gain by calling it 
>>> rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer 
>>>> rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage. 
>>>> 
>>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree 
>>>>> with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down, 
>>>>> because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I 
>>>>> believe it should be rc1.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to 
>>>>> be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software 
>>>>> with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that 
>>>>> Log4j has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not 
>>>>> disputing that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try 
>>>>> something that says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this 
>>>>> release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it 
>>>>> should be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of 
>>>>> people try it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nick
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9.  I'm suggesting that we 
>>>>>> target the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we 
>>>>>> believe is required for a GA release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, 
>>>>>>> thank you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin 
>>>>>>> another beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes 
>>>>>>> in and some new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over 
>>>>>>> OSGi. Just sayin... ;)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org 
>>>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
>>>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Reply via email to