You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> on 2013/09/01 00:36:05 UTC
Re: betas
Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what
label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a
beta out ASAP.
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi
issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may
take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm
currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over
beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to
rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that
RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen
both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that
for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for
"8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for
"Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j
2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
(I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
Nick
On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the
first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to
"rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it
isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1,
or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like
2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If
you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed
before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it
rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
Ralph
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer
rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree
> with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>
> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down,
> because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I
> believe it should be rc1.
>
> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to
> be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software
> with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j
> has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing
> that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that
> says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>
> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this
> release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should
> be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try
> it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>
> Nick
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target
> the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is
> required for a GA release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apache.org<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'rgoers@apache.org');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release -
>> I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi
>> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a
>> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to
>> release so I am OK with that.
>>
>
> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank
> you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another
> beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some
> new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just
> sayin... ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on
>> OSGi the best we can.
>>
>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
>> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
>> 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: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
> 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
>
>
>
Re: betas
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
You got me there! :)
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 18:57, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
You don't think we can get everything fixed in 2 days ;-)
Yes - beta9.
Ralph
On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
I hope you mean the next beta release and not 2.0.
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 18:47, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday.
Ralph
On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what
label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a
beta out ASAP.
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi
issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may
take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm
currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over
beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to
rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that
RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen
both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that
for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for
"8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for
"Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j
2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
(I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
Nick
On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the
first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to
"rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it
isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1,
or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like
2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If
you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed
before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it
rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
Ralph
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer
rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree
> with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>
> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down,
> because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I
> believe it should be rc1.
>
> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to
> be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software
> with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j
> has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing
> that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that
> says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>
> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this
> release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should
> be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try
> it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>
> Nick
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target
> the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is
> required for a GA release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apache.org<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'rgoers@apache.org');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release -
>> I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi
>> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a
>> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to
>> release so I am OK with that.
>>
>
> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank
> you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another
> beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some
> new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just
> sayin... ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on
>> OSGi the best we can.
>>
>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
>> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
>> 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: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
> 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
>
>
>
Re: betas
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
You don't think we can get everything fixed in 2 days ;-)
Yes - beta9.
Ralph
On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I hope you mean the next beta release and not 2.0.
>
> Gary
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 18:47, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a beta out ASAP.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
>>>>
>>>> 2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for "8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
>>>>
>>>> (I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to "rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1, or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like 2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>>> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down, because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I believe it should be rc1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is required for a GA release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release - I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to release so I am OK with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just sayin... ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on OSGi the best we can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: betas
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I hope you mean the next beta release and not 2.0.
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 18:47, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday.
Ralph
On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what
label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a
beta out ASAP.
Gary
On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>
wrote:
1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi
issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may
take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm
currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over
beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to
rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that
RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen
both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that
for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for
"8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for
"Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j
2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
(I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
Nick
On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the
first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to
"rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it
isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1,
or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like
2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If
you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed
before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it
rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
Ralph
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer
rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree
> with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>
> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down,
> because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I
> believe it should be rc1.
>
> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to
> be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software
> with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j
> has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing
> that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that
> says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>
> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this
> release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should
> be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try
> it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>
> Nick
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target
> the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is
> required for a GA release.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rgoers@apache.org<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'rgoers@apache.org');>
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release -
>> I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi
>> stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a
>> timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to
>> release so I am OK with that.
>>
>
> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank
> you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another
> beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some
> new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just
> sayin... ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on
>> OSGi the best we can.
>>
>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
>> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
>> 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: garydgregory@gmail.com<javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'garydgregory@gmail.com');>| ggregory@apache.org
> <javascript:_e({},%20'cvml',%20'ggregory@apache.org');>
> 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
>
>
>
Re: betas
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
Whatever it is, I am thinking I would start the release process Monday.
Ralph
On Aug 31, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people are just not going to touch pre-release software no mater what label you put on it. I say we just keep on the track we are on and get a beta out ASAP.
>
> Gary
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 17:29, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>
>> 1) It is obviously not production ready, since we're still having OSGi issues. There's also the ServletContainerInitializer discussion, which may take another cycle to resolve fully to everyone's satisfaction. I'm currently responding to your most recent comments. (Stop editing them! :-P)
>>
>> 2) I clearly articulated what I believed the advantage of using rc1 over beta9 was: getting more people to test it. I'm open to alternatives to rc1/RC1, but if you search Maven central for RC1 you'll see that RC1/2/3/4/5 is what *everyone* is using for release candidates. I've seen both 2.0.0-RC1 and 2.0.0.RC1 variations. I'm fine with either. Note that for the Tomcat 8.0.0-RC1 vote, for example, they simply voted for "8.0.0-RC1." They didn't vote for "8.0.0-RC1 rc 1." I suggest a vote for "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 candidate 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 take 2" or "Log4j 2.0.0-RC1 attempt 2" would be appropriate if the first vote for RC1 fails.
>>
>> (I do prefer uppercase RC1 instead of lowercase rc1.)
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> I simply have a problem with the string "rc1". For every release we do the first vote we have is for "rc 1". If the release vote fails we move on to "rc 2". In other words, an rc is a candidate for a specific version - it isn't a version itself. I can't imagine holding a vote for 2.0-rc1 rc 1, or worse 2.0-rc1 rc 2. A few other projects have done something like 2.0RC1, which is a little better. However ....
>>>
>>> If you really think it is ready for prime time then just call it 2.0. If you don't then I would ask that we identify what issues must be addressed before we can do a 2.0 release. What will we really gain by calling it rc1. It still means you don't believe it is production ready in my mind.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm fine with either rc1 and beta9 for the next release. I slightly prefer rc1: agree with Nick that rc1 may elicit more usage.
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, August 31, 2013, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>> I will that I do agree that this release shouldn't be GA. I also agree with Ralph that I believe the following release should target GA.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I'll repeat what I said sometime last month that got shot down, because I believe in it. I don't think this release should be beta9. I believe it should be rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may not be the case for all users, but it is for some: users tend to be a lot more willing to try out release candidate software than software with "beta" in the name. I know, many of us (including me) feel that Log4j has been release candidate-quality for some time now. I'm not disputing that. But it's a mental block. Some users just won't try something that says "beta" in it, no matter what /we/ say beta means.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we really, /really/ want as many people as possible to try out this release so that GA is as stable and complete as possible, I think it should be rc1 and not beta9. Worst case scenario: the same number of people try it. Best case: more people try it. Isn't that what we want?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not saying we shouldn't release beta9. I'm suggesting that we target the following release as GA, provided we fix everything we believe is required for a GA release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Well, I was going to ask what needs to be done to get to a GA release - I'd prefer there not be a beta10 if it isn't required. I do think the OSGi stuff needs to be addressed for that but I am not sure what else. From a timing perspective I think this is about the time we were shooting for to release so I am OK with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know it takes cycles to spin a beta (and I've not been doing them, thank you Ralph! ;) but I look at it the other way around. Why not spin another beta? It seems like a good time, we have *loads* of bug fixes in and some new features IRRC, and at least one large hump to go over OSGi. Just sayin... ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we should release the next beta9 now and then all focus on OSGi the best we can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would let us push out a lot of fixes and make beta10 all about OSGi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>>>> 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