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 Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> on 2014/02/09 05:31:03 UTC
[CANCELED][VOTE] Log4j 2.0-rc1 rc1
Well, unfortunately my first release attempt didn't turn out so well. The vote for Log4j 2.0-rc1 RC1 has been canceled:
- There are unsupported licenses. I will fix those shortly.
- There might be something pointing to rc2 instead of rc1. I'll look into that.
Gary also pointed out LOG4J2-531, reported within the last 24 hours. I don't think this is a show-stopper to rc1. We can roll rc2 soon, but it has been months since a release and I don't want to hold this up. Is anyone going to object to a release without a fix for LOG4J2-531?
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: [CANCELED][VOTE] Log4j 2.0-rc1 rc1
Posted by Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net>.
On Feb 8, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Nick Williams <ni...@nicholaswilliams.net> wrote:
> Well, unfortunately my first release attempt didn't turn out so well. The vote for Log4j 2.0-rc1 RC1 has been canceled:
>
> - There are unsupported licenses. I will fix those shortly.
> I've fixed the two missing license headers that Gary mentioned. Still need to check if there are other license issues.
Yes, but you fixed one of the incorrectly. :-) I have fixed it.
>
> - There might be something pointing to rc2 instead of rc1. I'll look into that.
> I think that was a misunderstanding: you renamed the versions in the pom.xml files to prepare for the next release (you were following the steps in the ReleaseProcedure). Gary updated his local workspace and saw these rc2 versions. I don't think there was any problem there.
Correct. I confirmed that upon further examination.
>
>
> Gary also pointed out LOG4J2-531, reported within the last 24 hours. I don't think this is a show-stopper to rc1. We can roll rc2 soon, but it has been months since a release and I don't want to hold this up. Is anyone going to object to a release without a fix for LOG4J2-531?
> I agree this should not be a showstopper. IMHO only a bug _introduced_ by the release would be a reason to cancel that release. This is an existing issue. (I have started investigating LOG4J2-531. It may not be a simple bugfix; it may be more involved - and take more time to do it right. All the more reason not to hold up the release for this.)
>
>
> Nick
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>
Re: [CANCELED][VOTE] Log4j 2.0-rc1 rc1
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Nick Williams <nicholas@nicholaswilliams.net
> wrote:
> Well, unfortunately my first release attempt didn't turn out so well. The
> vote for Log4j 2.0-rc1 RC1 has been canceled:
>
> - There are unsupported licenses. I will fix those shortly.
>
I've fixed the two missing license headers that Gary mentioned. Still need
to check if there are other license issues.
> - There might be something pointing to rc2 instead of rc1. I'll look into
> that.
>
I think that was a misunderstanding: you renamed the versions in the
pom.xml files to prepare for the next release (you were following the steps
in the ReleaseProcedure). Gary updated his local workspace and saw these
rc2 versions. I don't think there was any problem there.
>
> Gary also pointed out LOG4J2-531, reported within the last 24 hours. I
> don't think this is a show-stopper to rc1. We can roll rc2 soon, but it has
> been months since a release and I don't want to hold this up. Is anyone
> going to object to a release without a fix for LOG4J2-531?
>
I agree this should not be a showstopper. IMHO only a bug _introduced_ by
the release would be a reason to cancel that release. This is an existing
issue. (I have started investigating LOG4J2-531. It may not be a simple
bugfix; it may be more involved - and take more time to do it right. All
the more reason not to hold up the release for this.)
>
> Nick
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>