In a perfect world, we would cut an RC, wait for feedback and reports, and if nothing turns up, turn the RC into the GA. Whether that RC is #2 or #3 is another story.
Gary On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I don't think we have any major changes we want to get done that > can't be done in 2.1, so I'm also good with going GA. We could always do an > RC2 for just a week or two before making it GA. > > > On 19 June 2014 20:24, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good. >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Remko Popma >> Date:06/19/2014 19:37 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Re: Next Release >> >> 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 <garydgreg...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <remko.po...@gmail.com> 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 <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >>>> 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: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- 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
