I will try to deal with the distribution packaging Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>
