On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Remko Popma <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have only used git a little, not much experience with it, but I've >>>> heard good things about it. >>>> >>>> Please don't misunderstand, I don't mind having another bugfix release. >>>> I also don't mind fixing bugs and supporting users. I think I have a >>>> solid track record in that regard. >>>> >>>> I just think that new bug reports will keep coming in forever, and we >>>> should have some sort of structure for dealing with that that does not >>>> prevent working on new features in parallel. >>>> >>>> If git makes branching/merging easier then perhaps that would be a good >>>> solution for this? >>>> >>> >>> Branching is for this kind of work of course. I just do not want to >>> incur the overhead of dealing with branches unless I have to. So to put in >>> in concrete terms I propose to keep it simple like this: >>> >>> - 2.0.2: a bug fix release where the vote starts 8/18 >>> - 2.1.0: start work after 2.0.2 (which includes bug fixes of course). >>> - All in trunk >>> >> >> Okay, I can live with that. To clarify, the work for 2.1 would be done in >> trunk, correct? >> > > Right, I would just ask for patience before firing up 2.1 code in trunk to > after 2.0.2. This will let us all focus on 2.0.2 which can only be a good > thing IMO. > Okay, understood. > >> Would be be an idea to look at moving to git anyway? (I'm kind of +0.5 on >> that, I think it might be a good idea to move to git anyway, just not sure >> how much effort it would be...) >> > > Can you start a separate thread? We can [discuss], then [vote]; or you can > put up a [vote] thread right away. Up to you. > Will do. > > Gary > > > >> >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:51 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think we can keep our lives simpler WRT development process by >>>>> putting out a patch release or two (as Ralph and I suggest), then moving >>>>> to >>>>> 2.1. This will leaving branch only to developers who really need/want it. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm perfectly fine with moving to git, but that's mainly because it's >>>>>> what I use every day as it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5 August 2014 07:26, Ralph Goers <[email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this makes sense. As a general practice having at least two >>>>>>> or three patch releases after a major or minor release is probably a >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> idea. It is also fair to point out that it is highly unlikely that we >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> generate a patch release for an older version - once 2.1 is released it >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> unlikely we would go back and release 2.0.2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:19 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>>>> From: Remko Popma >>>>>>> Date:08/05/2014 00:48 (GMT-05:00) >>>>>>> To: Log4J Developers List >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Which direction to focus on next? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can easily do bug fixes from the tag. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4 August 2014 21:15, Remko Popma <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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] >>>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> | >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matt Sicker <[email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> | >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> | >>> [email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>> 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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> | [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > 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 >
