Sounds good.

Gary

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Remko Popma 
<[email protected]> </div><div>Date:06/19/2014  19:37  (GMT-05:00) 
</div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> 
</div><div>Subject: Re: Next Release </div><div>
</div>I think we are actually missing out on a lot of community feedback by not 
releasing 2.0. Many people are waiting...

If we want to make this release an RC release instead of GA, I can live with 
that, but then we should do our utmost to make the next release GA. 

If we want to avoid branching, then let's agree to only commit bug fixes, and 
no new features/refactoring to trunk until after GA. 

Thoughts?

Sent from my iPhone

On 2014/06/19, at 23:19, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

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
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