My preference is to do another rc build if my changes go in. But I also feel bad for stalling myself. On Jul 14, 2014 1:46 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I, too, would prefer to release now and follow up with updates in the > short term. > > > On 13 July 2014 23:35, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I guess that means you won't be voting on the current release candidate? >> Pretty much everyone else thinks it is time. If that is the case one of the >> other PMC members will need to fail or the release vote will fail. >> >> For what it is worth, I have no problem with a 2.0.1 or 2.1 in a few >> weeks if desired. I just think we have been stalling long enough. >> >> And I hope we continue to keep fixing things at the same, or better, pace. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 13, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'd be ok with another RC. My ideal scenario is that an RC is released, >> some time goes by without new bug reports and then the next RC becomes a >> release. As things are now, we've fixed plenty since rc2. But hey that's >> just me ;-) >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Bruce Brouwer >> Date:07/13/2014 22:35 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Re: Next release >> >> Ok, the only test that didn't pass was the one testing for StatusLogger >> writing to a file. I removed that test on the branch. If you review that >> and think it worthy to go into the trunk, I'm pretty much on board with a >> 2.0 release (unless you think a short lived rc3 is in order). >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Ok, this is starting to be simpler, as I'm sure you would all prefer. >>> You can look at the branch LOG4J-609 again if you like. Here are the >>> simplifications that I have made. >>> >>> 1) The listeners no longer report their level. They can decide if they >>> want to do something with a status message in their log method. >>> 2) There is no longer the option to configure the StatusLogger to write >>> to a file. >>> 3) I moved StatusConsoleListener out of log4j-api and into log4j-core, >>> where we can probably get away with making more drastic changes to it in >>> the future (so I can fix LOG4J-609) >>> >>> I have to check on the tests and stuff, but in general, I'm pretty happy >>> with how small the impact is and in its ability to make a better solution >>> for LOG4J-609 possible in the future. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This actually makes me wonder why you can configure the status logger >>>> from a configuration file. Shouldn't this just be a system property or >>>> something? >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 July 2014 18:57, Bruce Brouwer <bruce.brou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The listener can be removed, but nothing ever does. Right now it can >>>>> never know if it should be removed. And also, all that level checking is >>>>> cached in StatusLogger. If all you do is change the status level of the >>>>> listener it has no effect on the cached value in StatusLogger. It may end >>>>> up having no effect. >>>>> >>>>> This is some of the stuff I was trying to clean up with my fix that I >>>>> have been delinquent with. >>>>> >>>>> I will try to simplify this on the branch and see if it makes sense in >>>>> the next hour or two. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Bruce Brouwer >>> about.me/bruce.brouwer >>> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] >>> <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Bruce Brouwer >> about.me/bruce.brouwer >> [image: Bruce Brouwer on about.me] >> <http://about.me/bruce.brouwer> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >
