It feels to early to create busy work to branch IMO. We should do RC2 first and get feedback first IMO.
Gary On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Remko on the branching idea. Yes, it would make sense to make > RC2 and if that is sufficiently stable, tag it as 2.0 GA. When we do RC2, > it should be copied to branches/2.0 or similar. Then we can continue work > for 2.1 in trunk. > > Bug fixes for 2.0 should be done on the 2.0 branch and merged to trunk. I > think that works rather well usually. > > > On 19 June 2014 08:25, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Personally I would like to release a GA as soon as possible. I remember >> that in spring of 2013 we were talking about releasing GA that summer, so >> we've missed that goal by a year already! I agree with Ralph that I think >> the code is ready. >> >> If many people want to release an RC2 first in order to confirm the >> stability before releasing the GA, then I would agree with that, but that >> would only make sense if we can also agree not to make changes that would >> require yet another RC... >> >> I would propose that with RC2 we do a feature freeze. We create a >> "2.0-release" branch (or something like that, any name is fine), and we >> only commit bug fixes to that branch. After say, one month (what would be a >> reasonable time?) we release GA from that branch. >> >> Meanwhile, development for new features, refactoring etc continues on >> trunk. Of course any bug fix committed to the 2.0-release branch also needs >> to be merged into trunk. >> >> Perhaps one of the reasons we've not been able to do the 2.0 release >> earlier is that currently there is only one branch, trunk, where both bug >> fixes and new development happens, which makes it hard to say that "now we >> have something that is stable enough to release". >> >> We could also do this the other way around, make trunk the release >> branch, and create a "2.1" (or something) branch for new development, that >> would work too. The point is, we want to be able to add new features and >> refactor on the one hand, and on the other hand we want to stabilize the >> code for the GA release, and I think separate branches will help us >> accomplish that. >> >> Remko >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> To me it feels like another RC would be best. So many changes went in >>> since RC 1 that feedback and community testing are needed. If things are >>> stable with RC 2 then we can release. There also one non trivial >>> issue/feature I'll ask about ASAP on the ML. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Ralph Goers >>> Date:06/19/2014 00:57 (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Log4J Developers List >>> Subject: Next Release >>> >>> We are overdue for a release. The only question I have is whether it >>> should be rc2 or GA. >>> 1. Are there any open issues that are blockers to a GA release? >>> 2. Is everyone comfortable with the state of the code for a GA release? >>> >>> For me, I am not aware of any blockers and I think the code is good. The >>> only thing I am wondering is with all the changes that have been made from >>> rc1 what risk there is with this release being GA. I suppose one >>> possibility would be to release rc2 and then do GA after just a few weeks. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Ralph >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] 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
