About outstanding issues: I'm aware of two things: changes to the site for the new logo (incl updating the home page announcement) and ensuring that the log4j-perf module is not included in the distribution. This last thing may be easiest accomplished by renaming it so that it doesn't match the "log4j-" pattern used in assembly/bin. (Also may need a change in assembly/source.) Perhaps rename to log4j2-perf or just perf?
Going over other Jiras now but so far didn't see any showstoppers. Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/06/20, at 9:23, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m fine with all that. What bugs need to be fixed before rc2 (if any). I > am hoping I can find the time this weekend to create the release. > > Ralph > > >> On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >
