Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not
>>>>> a dumb
>>>>> > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it.
>>>>>
&
Grobmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it's not a
>>>> dumb
>>>> > version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm
t;>>
>>>>>>> On 3 February 2014 15:41, Christian Grobmeier
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3 Feb 2014, at 22:14, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I like 2.0.0 because semver.org etc., although as long as it&#x
t;>
>>> Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many understand
>>> and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> >
>>
version number like GA or RELEASE or Final, I'm happy with it.
>>>
>>> Sticking with semver might be a good idea. Its a language many understand
>>> and we should try to stick with that lanugage as well.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> &
> > On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >
>> >> Keep it simple: 2.0.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Original message
>> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
>> >&
n 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> >
>> >> Keep it simple: 2.0.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Original message
>> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
>> >> Date
ep it simple: 2.0.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >> ---- Original message ----
> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
> >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: Log4J Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: What will the GA ver
>>
> >> Original message ----
> >> From: Christian Grobmeier
> >> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: Log4J Developers List
> >> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be?
> >>
> >> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
stick with that lanugage as well.
>
>
> On 3 February 2014 07:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Keep it simple: 2.0.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> Original message
>> From: Christian Grobmeier
>> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
>
: Christian Grobmeier
> Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Log4J Developers List
> Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be?
>
> Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
>
> On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> > I had thought it would be 2.0.
> >
>
Keep it simple: 2.0.
Gary
Original message
From: Christian Grobmeier
Date:02/03/2014 05:12 (GMT-05:00)
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: What will the GA version number be?
Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I had thought
I know we have all contributed, but it is kind of Ralph's baby... I propose
we let Ralph decide.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Andreas Opitz wrote:
> +1
>
>
> 2014-02-03 Nick Williams :
>
> I've seen some people say 2.0.0 and some people say they figured it would
>> be 2.0 but 2.0.0 would be f
+1
2014-02-03 Nick Williams :
> I've seen some people say 2.0.0 and some people say they figured it would
> be 2.0 but 2.0.0 would be fine. Since we will eventually release a 2.0.1, I
> propose that we keep the version numbers the same consistent length (and
> follow a convention most other OSS
I've seen some people say 2.0.0 and some people say they figured it would be
2.0 but 2.0.0 would be fine. Since we will eventually release a 2.0.1, I
propose that we keep the version numbers the same consistent length (and follow
a convention most other OSS projects use), and release GA as "2.0.
Also 2.0 or 2.0.0 for me
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:41, Ralph Goers wrote:
I had thought it would be 2.0.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams
wrote:
I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers
Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Le
I had thought it would be 2.0.
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Nick Williams
> wrote:
>
> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers
> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was extendable!), and
> I need to know what the Maven arti
I like short names (and to me, 2.0 doesn't conflict with a subsequent
2.0.1),
so either 2.0 or 2.0.0 would be my preference.
(But no strong preference. Other name is fine too.)
Remko
On Monday, February 3, 2014, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I vote for 2.0.0... and my vote is non-binding. :-)
>
>
> O
I vote for 2.0.0... and my vote is non-binding. :-)
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Nick Williams <
nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers
> Wednesday (I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was extendable!),
> and I n
I'm finalizing the logging chapter of my book to send to the printers Wednesday
(I'm so glad I got to correct it to say Level was extendable!), and I need to
know what the Maven artifact GA version number will be. I print the new Maven
artifacts used in each chapter on the first page of the chap
20 matches
Mail list logo
