You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bval.apache.org by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/13 17:26:06 UTC
Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to see
us make a release. It's been a long time since 0.3-incubating, and
1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having moved
to TLP.
Matt
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
woha, go for it tiger :D
I can suport you with all the maven release stuff or even cut it if you like.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@bval.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:26 PM
> Subject: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
>
> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to see
> us make a release. It's been a long time since 0.3-incubating, and
> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having moved
> to TLP.
>
> Matt
>
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the 0.4 release first and then go for the 1.0
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/3/19 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
> > yup 0.4 is fine as well.
> >
> >
> > I'd even say 0.8 or 0.9 is better ;)
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > > To: dev@bval.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
> > >
> > >G erhard pointed out to me that there may be other items we want to
> > > look at (e.g. Apache* classnames) in addition to the logging
> > > discussion before we call our implementation "baked enough for 1.0".
> > > I tend to agree with him and will proceed with 0.4 to be followed with
> > > a 1.0 in the near future, unless anyone disagrees.
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > >> Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^
> > >>
> > >> Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;)
> > >>
> > >> We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this
> > loudly
> > > cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so.
> > >>
> > >> I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this
> > discussion
> > > over and over again on various projects.
> > >>
> > >> LieGrue,
> > >> strub
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> > >>> To: dev@bval.apache.org
> > >>> Cc:
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
> > >>>
> > >>> hi matt,
> > >>>
> > >>> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0
> > > already (if i
> > >>> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the
> > > logging
> > >>> framework).
> > >>>
> > >>> regards,
> > >>> gerhard
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to
> > > see
> > >>>> us make a release. It's been a long time since
> > > 0.3-incubating, and
> > >>>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having
> > > moved
> > >>>> to TLP.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Matt
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
+1
regards,
gerhard
2012/3/19 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> yup 0.4 is fine as well.
>
>
> I'd even say 0.8 or 0.9 is better ;)
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@bval.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
> >
> >G erhard pointed out to me that there may be other items we want to
> > look at (e.g. Apache* classnames) in addition to the logging
> > discussion before we call our implementation "baked enough for 1.0".
> > I tend to agree with him and will proceed with 0.4 to be followed with
> > a 1.0 in the near future, unless anyone disagrees.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >> Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^
> >>
> >> Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;)
> >>
> >> We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this
> loudly
> > cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so.
> >>
> >> I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this
> discussion
> > over and over again on various projects.
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> >>> To: dev@bval.apache.org
> >>> Cc:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
> >>>
> >>> hi matt,
> >>>
> >>> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0
> > already (if i
> >>> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the
> > logging
> >>> framework).
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>> gerhard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to
> > see
> >>>> us make a release. It's been a long time since
> > 0.3-incubating, and
> >>>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having
> > moved
> >>>> to TLP.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
yup 0.4 is fine as well.
I'd even say 0.8 or 0.9 is better ;)
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@bval.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
>
>G erhard pointed out to me that there may be other items we want to
> look at (e.g. Apache* classnames) in addition to the logging
> discussion before we call our implementation "baked enough for 1.0".
> I tend to agree with him and will proceed with 0.4 to be followed with
> a 1.0 in the near future, unless anyone disagrees.
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^
>>
>> Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;)
>>
>> We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this loudly
> cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so.
>>
>> I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this discussion
> over and over again on various projects.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>>> To: dev@bval.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
>>>
>>> hi matt,
>>>
>>> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0
> already (if i
>>> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the
> logging
>>> framework).
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to
> see
>>>> us make a release. It's been a long time since
> 0.3-incubating, and
>>>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having
> moved
>>>> to TLP.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Gerhard pointed out to me that there may be other items we want to
look at (e.g. Apache* classnames) in addition to the logging
discussion before we call our implementation "baked enough for 1.0".
I tend to agree with him and will proceed with 0.4 to be followed with
a 1.0 in the near future, unless anyone disagrees.
Matt
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^
>
> Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;)
>
> We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this loudly cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so.
>
> I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this discussion over and over again on various projects.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@bval.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
>>
>> hi matt,
>>
>> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0 already (if i
>> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the logging
>> framework).
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to see
>>> us make a release. It's been a long time since 0.3-incubating, and
>>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having moved
>>> to TLP.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Folks this logging discussion sucks ^^
Ok, not the _discussion_ sucks, the topic does ;)
We need this stuff over and over again, and I really do think this loudly cries out for a commons-logging-2 or so.
I already wrote this to the commons list, because we have this discussion over and over again on various projects.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@bval.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
>
> hi matt,
>
> +1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0 already (if i
> remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the logging
> framework).
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
>> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to see
>> us make a release. It's been a long time since 0.3-incubating, and
>> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having moved
>> to TLP.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
Re: Are we ready for a 1.0 release candidate?
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi matt,
+1! for a release, but i'm not sure if we should call it v1.0 already (if i
remember correctly, we still don't have an agreement e.g. about the logging
framework).
regards,
gerhard
2012/3/13 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> Subject says it all. Some of our other Apache TLPs would like to see
> us make a release. It's been a long time since 0.3-incubating, and
> 1.0 would be a great way to inaugurate the project after having moved
> to TLP.
>
> Matt
>