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 Mark Womack <wo...@adobe.com> on 2005/08/05 19:08:19 UTC
1.2.12 Status
I am going to build rc3 this weekend. We should treat that version as the
final release candidate and move forward with final release, hopefully by
the middle of next week.
If there are any concerns or issues, now is the time.
Thanks,
-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
RE: 1.2.12 Status
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@MIT.EDU>.
Hi,
> > I was a bit surprised to see HISTORY.txt having separate entries for
> > log4j 1.2.12-rc1 and rc2 since those builds don't have the
> > endorsement of the the project and will never be part of the official
> > history of log4j. In the next build, I'd wrap all the chances since
> > 1.2.11 into one entry for 1.2.12.
>
> The plan is to consolidate them before the final release. It might be
> useful to know which rc the change was applied. But with the final
> release,
> none of that will matter, so it will be consolidated.
I'm -0 on consolidating. The HISTORY.txt file doesn't have to correspond to
any official release. It's just a convenience for users, a step above
having to consult the CVS logs as to see what happened. As such, it might
be useful, especially to advanced users, to know exactly which release
contained what changes. Furthermore, the convention of associating this
information with sub-releases (alpha, beta, rcs, etc.) is fairly common in
both big (Weblogic, Eclipse, httpd, etc) and small (Jakarta commons)
projects.
So if the other committers really want to consolidate all the changes for a
given release's candidates into one section, that's fine with me (hence the
-0 and not -1), but I think keeping separate is valuable to some people and
doesn't do any harm to anyone.
Yoav
RE: 1.2.12 Status
Posted by Mark Womack <wo...@adobe.com>.
> I was a bit surprised to see HISTORY.txt having separate entries for
> log4j 1.2.12-rc1 and rc2 since those builds don't have the
> endorsement of the the project and will never be part of the official
> history of log4j. In the next build, I'd wrap all the chances since
> 1.2.11 into one entry for 1.2.12.
The plan is to consolidate them before the final release. It might be
useful to know which rc the change was applied. But with the final release,
none of that will matter, so it will be consolidated.
> I think that the proper location for distribution of the thing you
> are building this weekend is http://cvs.apache.org/builds, not http://
> cvs.apache.org/dist. The Releases FAQ (http://www.apache.org/dev/
> release.html) mentions "release candidate" as a maturity state
> following "alpha" and "beta" and not for a build that is being
> considered for release. In that usage, we might have a log4j-1.3-rc1
> issued after log4j-1.3-beta6 and before log4j-1.3.0, but all of those
> would have required votes before being released. log4j-1.2.12-rc1
> and -rc2 have not had official approval and would be considered only
> builds, not releases, so they should go in /builds.
Thanks. I will put it where it needs to go. Do The Right Release Thing
(tm). Regardless of where it ends up, I have made it very clear in the
release announcements that these releases are not final/official. I expect
that with the v1.3 releases we will need to put them in the right places and
make more vocal announcements to the community at large to come and get it.
We should make a new alpha release of v1.3 before we do the svn conversion.
I'll also look at starting that build process this weekend.
> Have we had any reports, favorable or otherwise, from Chainsaw users
> with the existing 1.2.12 release candidates?
Not that I have seen on the email lists or anything to me directly. Scott,
Paul, have you guys had a chance to play with 1.2.12 and Chainsaw?
-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: 1.2.12 Status
Posted by Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>.
On Aug 5, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Mark Womack wrote:
> I am going to build rc3 this weekend. We should treat that version
> as the
> final release candidate and move forward with final release,
> hopefully by
> the middle of next week.
>
> If there are any concerns or issues, now is the time.
>
> Thanks,
> -Mark
>
I was a bit surprised to see HISTORY.txt having separate entries for
log4j 1.2.12-rc1 and rc2 since those builds don't have the
endorsement of the the project and will never be part of the official
history of log4j. In the next build, I'd wrap all the chances since
1.2.11 into one entry for 1.2.12.
I think that the proper location for distribution of the thing you
are building this weekend is http://cvs.apache.org/builds, not http://
cvs.apache.org/dist. The Releases FAQ (http://www.apache.org/dev/
release.html) mentions "release candidate" as a maturity state
following "alpha" and "beta" and not for a build that is being
considered for release. In that usage, we might have a log4j-1.3-rc1
issued after log4j-1.3-beta6 and before log4j-1.3.0, but all of those
would have required votes before being released. log4j-1.2.12-rc1
and -rc2 have not had official approval and would be considered only
builds, not releases, so they should go in /builds.
Have we had any reports, favorable or otherwise, from Chainsaw users
with the existing 1.2.12 release candidates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org