I like it all with the possible exception of attempting to produce 4.0 targeted assembly in the short term 1.2.11. I THINK that will delay the process. If it does not, then fine - no problem.
I see NO benefit of creating an assembly that targets 3.5 since that is still the 2.0 CLR UNLESS we put in code that is only available in 3.5 and I do not believe we are ready do that in the 1.2.11 time frame. We certainly may want to create a WCF appender somewhere down the line, but not now. (Slap me for even thinking of such an appender.) Just to confirm, the current plan for doing the triage, for those of us without other privileges" is that we will "comment" on the issue that they are looking at it. Of course people with permissions would assign it to themselves. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Chastain -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 09:13 To: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org Subject: Planning 1.2.11 Hi all, this is how I think we could get to a 1.2.11 release in the timeframe of about a month: (1) look at all issues currently reported and assign them to 1.2.11 if (a) they describe a reproducible bug that we know how to fix (b) they wish for a feature that looks desirable to more than just the reporter, have a patch appended with the "licensed to the ASF" checkbox checked, come with a unit test (2) assign all other issues to one of the versions "1.2 maintenance", 2.0, 3.5 or 4.0 - or close them if they are user questions or otherwise not appropriate at all. (3) provide fixes for all (1)(a) items and attach them as patch checking the "licensed to the ASF" checkbox (4) apply all patches with target 1.2.11 (5) create a build environment that can produce all buiod artifacts we've had for 1.2.10 plus assemblies targeting .NET 3.5 (already done in trunk), .NET 4.0 and Mono 3.5. (a) try to build client profile assemblies for 3.5 and 4.0 as well but don't allow this to delay 1.2.11 (6) Release Those things don't have to happen in that sequence, for example I volunteer to set up a build environment for log4net locally - unless Ron has time to do it, that is. Everybody can help with steps (1) to (3), we'd just need to coordinate so we don't duplicate effort. As already mentioned in a separate mail, I likely won't find much time to contribute (if any) the next two calendar weeks. The major piece of work will be the triage and fixing bugs anyway, nobody really needs to wait for me or anybody else with commit access for that. Does that sound reasonable? If so, I'd also make some noise about it (for example on the user list) so we may even get more active patch reviewers. Please don't hesitate to tell me I'm wrong - that would neither be the first nor the last time. Stefan
