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 Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> on 2014/02/07 19:29:33 UTC
Re: GA?
Any showstoppers left for anyone?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but not sure
if it qualifies as a showstopper...
I'll see if I can find time to work on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but this is
not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what we
have now.
Cheers, -Remko
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to the
>> API.
>>
>
> I would like to highlight that!
>
> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major
>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate changes).
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>
>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even
>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur some
>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release. Aside
>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work it will
>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just an
>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>
>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try and
>>> use the new level system...
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC but
>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many showstopper
>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a real
>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to understand
>>> what the reason is.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another
>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may be
>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty frequent for
>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>
>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as more
>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container with
>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one bundle
>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>
>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in servlet
>>>> environments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would be a
>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that caused us
>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remko
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out
>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be
>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on
>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't believe
>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels is
>>>>> required?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: GA?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> It's ok for me to make an RC.
>>>
>>> I would like to avoid the "beta" from a community perspective.
>>> I also don't don't think that we are beta anymore and it would
>>> be misleading for the community. In fact, having a RC would
>>> show we are close before.
>>>
>>> You are more the beta guy where I am usually more into GA, so can we
>>> find a compromise on RC?
>>>
>>>
>> Sure, you can put whatever label it, but I think there should be as many
>> releases as needed until we have an RC-n to GA with very few changes.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> RC-1: the giant set of changes since beta-9
>> RC-2: fixes
>> ...
>> GA: API frozen until 3.0
>>
>
> I get your point.
>
> My feeling says there will not be too many big changes in future.
> If others feel different i am fine with beta.
> If others think like me I am happy about RC and trying to keep
> modifications low.
>
Whatever label we put on it, we need another pre-GA release ASAP, it's been
too long since beta9 and there have been a lot of changes since.
Gary
>
>> Gary
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the next release should be an RC (or beta), not the GA. There are
>>>
>>>> just too many changes since beta-9 IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, there should only be minor fixes from RC to GA.
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier <
>>>> grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
>>>>
>>>>> I am just after it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll see if I can find time to work on
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> have now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, -Remko
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>>>>>> grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to highlight that!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> changes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <
>>>>>>>>> remko.popma@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>>>>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release.
>>>>>>>>> Aside
>>>>>>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>>>>>>> showstopper
>>>>>>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a
>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What about:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>>>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>>>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week
>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>>>>>>> frequent for
>>>>>>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as
>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one
>>>>>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in
>>>>>>>>>> servlet
>>>>>>>>>> environments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>>>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>>>>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that
>>>>>>>>>> caused us
>>>>>>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels
>>>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else
>>>>>>>>>>> feels
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.
>>>>>>>>>>> org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>> @grobmeier
>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
>>
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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: GA?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:25, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> It's ok for me to make an RC.
>>
>> I would like to avoid the "beta" from a community perspective.
>> I also don't don't think that we are beta anymore and it would
>> be misleading for the community. In fact, having a RC would
>> show we are close before.
>>
>> You are more the beta guy where I am usually more into GA, so can we
>> find a compromise on RC?
>>
>
> Sure, you can put whatever label it, but I think there should be as
> many
> releases as needed until we have an RC-n to GA with very few changes.
>
> For example:
>
> RC-1: the giant set of changes since beta-9
> RC-2: fixes
> ...
> GA: API frozen until 3.0
I get your point.
My feeling says there will not be too many big changes in future.
If others feel different i am fine with beta.
If others think like me I am happy about RC and trying to keep
modifications low.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary
>
>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I think the next release should be an RC (or beta), not the GA. There
>> are
>>> just too many changes since beta-9 IMO.
>>>
>>> Ideally, there should only be minor fixes from RC to GA.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
>>>> I am just after it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure
>>>>> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll see if I can find time to work on
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but
>>>>> this
>>>>> is
>>>>> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with
>>>>> what we
>>>>> have now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, -Remko
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>>>>> grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to highlight that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory
>>>>>>> <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a
>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate
>>>>>>>> changes).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma
>>>>>>>> <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>>>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc,
>>>>>>>> and even
>>>>>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help
>>>>>>>> spur some
>>>>>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA
>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>> Aside
>>>>>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much
>>>>>>>> work it
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to
>>>>>>>> try
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or
>>>>>>>> an RC
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>>>>>> showstopper
>>>>>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a
>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to
>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory
>>>>>>>> <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a
>>>>>>>>> week may
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>>>>>> frequent for
>>>>>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the
>>>>>>>>> container with
>>>>>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> servlet
>>>>>>>>> environments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> caused us
>>>>>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to
>>>>>>>>>> find out
>>>>>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I
>>>>>>>>>> planned on
>>>>>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels
>>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't
>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else
>>>>>>>>>> feels
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>>> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>> @grobmeier
>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: GA?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It's ok for me to make an RC.
>
> I would like to avoid the "beta" from a community perspective.
> I also don't don't think that we are beta anymore and it would
> be misleading for the community. In fact, having a RC would
> show we are close before.
>
> You are more the beta guy where I am usually more into GA, so can we
> find a compromise on RC?
>
Sure, you can put whatever label it, but I think there should be as many
releases as needed until we have an RC-n to GA with very few changes.
For example:
RC-1: the giant set of changes since beta-9
RC-2: fixes
...
GA: API frozen until 3.0
Gary
Gary
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I think the next release should be an RC (or beta), not the GA. There are
>> just too many changes since beta-9 IMO.
>>
>> Ideally, there should only be minor fixes from RC to GA.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
>>> I am just after it
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>
>>> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but not
>>>> sure
>>>> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>>>>
>>>> I'll see if I can find time to work on
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but this
>>>> is
>>>> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what we
>>>> have now.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, -Remko
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <
>>>> grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to the
>>>>>
>>>>> API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to highlight that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major
>>>>>>
>>>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate
>>>>>>> changes).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even
>>>>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur some
>>>>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release.
>>>>>>> Aside
>>>>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work it
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>>>>> showstopper
>>>>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a real
>>>>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>>>>> frequent for
>>>>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container with
>>>>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one
>>>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in
>>>>>>>> servlet
>>>>>>>> environments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that
>>>>>>>> caused us
>>>>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out
>>>>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be
>>>>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on
>>>>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels
>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't
>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>>> @grobmeier
>>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>> @grobmeier
>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
>>
>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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: GA?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
It's ok for me to make an RC.
I would like to avoid the "beta" from a community perspective.
I also don't don't think that we are beta anymore and it would
be misleading for the community. In fact, having a RC would
show we are close before.
You are more the beta guy where I am usually more into GA, so can we
find a compromise on RC?
Cheers
Christian
On 7 Feb 2014, at 22:07, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I think the next release should be an RC (or beta), not the GA. There
> are
> just too many changes since beta-9 IMO.
>
> Ideally, there should only be minor fixes from RC to GA.
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
>> I am just after it
>>
>>
>> On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
>>
>> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but
>>> not
>>> sure
>>> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>>>
>>> I'll see if I can find time to work on
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but
>>> this
>>> is
>>> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with
>>> what we
>>> have now.
>>>
>>> Cheers, -Remko
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <grobmeier@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> API.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would like to highlight that!
>>>>
>>>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a
>>>>> major
>>>>>
>>>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate
>>>>>> changes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma
>>>>>> <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release.
>>>>>> Aside
>>>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's
>>>>>> just an
>>>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to
>>>>>> try and
>>>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an
>>>>>> RC but
>>>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>>>> showstopper
>>>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a
>>>>>> real
>>>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory
>>>>>> <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants
>>>>>> another
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>>>> frequent for
>>>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this
>>>>>>> as more
>>>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one
>>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in
>>>>>>> servlet
>>>>>>> environments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that
>>>>>>> caused us
>>>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers
>>>>>>>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels
>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else
>>>>>>>> feels
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>>> @grobmeier
>>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: GA?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think the next release should be an RC (or beta), not the GA. There are
just too many changes since beta-9 IMO.
Ideally, there should only be minor fixes from RC to GA.
Gary
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
> I am just after it
>
>
> On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but not
>> sure
>> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>>
>> I'll see if I can find time to work on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but this
>> is
>> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what we
>> have now.
>>
>> Cheers, -Remko
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to the
>>>
>>>> API.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would like to highlight that!
>>>
>>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major
>>>>
>>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate changes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and even
>>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur some
>>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release. Aside
>>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work it
>>>>> will
>>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just an
>>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try and
>>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC but
>>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>>> showstopper
>>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a real
>>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to understand
>>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants another
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week may
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>>> frequent for
>>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as more
>>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container with
>>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one
>>>>>> bundle
>>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in
>>>>>> servlet
>>>>>> environments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would be
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that
>>>>>> caused us
>>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find out
>>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to be
>>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned on
>>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't believe
>>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else feels
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>>> @grobmeier
>>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
> @grobmeier
> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | 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: GA?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Let me do the package rename from couch to couchdb.
I am just after it
On 7 Feb 2014, at 19:29, Remko Popma wrote:
> Any showstoppers left for anyone?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-529 is not great, but not
> sure
> if it qualifies as a showstopper...
>
> I'll see if I can find time to work on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-520 this weekend, but
> this is
> not a showstopper IMHO. So I'd be fine with doing a release with what
> we
> have now.
>
> Cheers, -Remko
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 1:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> I agree with that, but that doesn't mean we can't add new stuff to
>> the
>>> API.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to highlight that!
>>
>> Anyway happy with the proposed time plan :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO: We cannot/should not break binary compatibility without a major
>>>> release change (and accompanying package and Maven coordinate
>>>> changes).
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Remko Popma
>>>> <re...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> How about an RC now (after showstoppers are fixed),
>>>> then the GA release say one month later?
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind we can still have bugix releases in 2.0.1, etc, and
>>>> even
>>>> API changes in 2.1 etc...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree on putting out an RC release. I think it might help spur
>>>> some
>>>> 3rd party development to integrate with the new version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 January 2014 12:37, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> So, yes, the new level API needs to go through a non-GA release.
>>>> Aside
>>>> from that, I am behind in my Log4j2 homework to see how much work
>>>> it will
>>>> be to convert our Log4j1 code and extensions to v2. But that's just
>>>> an
>>>> issue on my end that should not hold up everyone else.
>>>>
>>>> I've been out of 100% commission for almost a week so I need to try
>>>> and
>>>> use the new level system...
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Ralph Goers <
>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> Due to the API change I can agree with having another beta or an RC
>>>> but
>>>> the reason I asked about GA is that I am not aware of very many
>>>> showstopper
>>>> issues that need to be addressed. I am sensing that you have a
>>>> real
>>>> reluctance to have Log4j 2 released as GA and I am trying to
>>>> understand
>>>> what the reason is.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 6:15 AM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Nick. Changing levels to be extensible warrants
>>>> another
>>>>> Beta. I'd like to see a stable API before we get into RC mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Now: Another Beta
>>>>> - +1 month, If the API is stable: RC1
>>>>> - RCs until shows stoppers are fixed, pick a rhythm: once a week
>>>>> may be
>>>>> too much, once a month too long. Every two weeks seems pretty
>>>>> frequent for
>>>>> our bunch for a ramp down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on that?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not so much concerned about OSGi now since I look at this as
>>>>> more
>>>>> of a packaging issue and how much gets dragged in the container
>>>>> with
>>>>> dependencies. For OSGi, are we really considering delivering one
>>>>> bundle
>>>>> (jar) per appender?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am more concerned about all the issues people seem to have in
>>>>> servlet
>>>>> environments.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Williams <
>>>>> nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
>>>>> I wouldn't necessarily vote against a GA, but given that we just
>>>>> MAJORLY overhauled Level, I think a brief RC is in order. It would
>>>>> be a
>>>>> shame if someone found a problem with Level a week after GA that
>>>>> caused us
>>>>> to need to change the API to fix it.
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to fix LOG4J-412 and 448, but neither of them are
>>>>>> showstoppers IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remko
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, January 27, 2014, Ralph Goers
>>>>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Since we are having good discussions I would also like to find
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> what are blockers to a GA release. My list includes:
>>>>>> 1. The fix Nick is working on to allow Servlet initialization to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> disabled from automatically happening in a 3.0 container.
>>>>>> 2. Support for programmatic configuration of Loggers. I planned
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> working on that this weekend but worked on the custom levels
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I believe better support for OSGi is necessary I don't
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> we will be able to do that for GA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any other Jira issues or features that anybody else
>>>>>> feels is
>>>>>> required?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>> log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
>> @grobmeier
>> GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>>
>>
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org