I should have been clearer, sorry. I am suggesting we take a week (or two) and have a round of bug fixing for a 2.0.2, even if those are just low hanging fruits. This will give us a "better 2.0", then we do new features. As a user, that would give me confidence the log4j team is listening to bug reports before going back to having fun adding new features.
2c, Gary Gary <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Remko Popma <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:08/05/2014 00:48 (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> </div><div>Subject: Re: Which direction to focus on next? </div><div> </div>Thanks, Matt. Gary, Ralph, what do you think? Where should we work on new features? I see these options: 1. Don't work on new features, or keep new features on our local machines, don't commit to apache svn. (TBD: until when?) 2. Everyone creates separate branches for new features they want to work on. So Remko would have a binary logging/memmap branch, and a branch for deleting old rolled-over files, Matt would have a jdbc-batched-inserts branch, etc. Bugfixes go into trunk. Everyone is free to sync their branch(es) with trunk's bugfixes or not. 3. We create a shared 2.1 branch for new features. Bugfixes go into trunk as well as the 2.1 branch. 4. Both new features and bugfixes are committed to trunk. No branches needed. 5. The opposite of option 3: we create a 2.0.2 branch that holds bugfixes only. Trunk has both new features and bugfixes. 6. Any alternatives that I missed? Gary, in the past you mentioned you don't like the busywork of maintaining two branches. I'm fine with that, but to me that means new features can go into trunk, because I really don't like option 1... Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone On 2014/08/05, at 11:31, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: I think we can easily do bug fixes from the tag. On 4 August 2014 21:15, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: Well, the thing is, I've been holding back on this and prioritized bugfixes for over a year now in order to get 2.0 out the door. I've really been looking forward to working on these new things. So what am I supposed to do? There will never be an end to new bugs being reported. Not happy, Remko... Sent from my iPhone On 2014/08/05, at 10:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the 2.0.1 vote that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling is that our priority should be to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before adding more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize the current features in 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features. Gary On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 release, or should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because if we go the 2.1 route of focus, I've got a few branches to merge back together (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that regard) into trunk. As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 branch since we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary. -- 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 -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
