mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Maarten Bosteels" <mbosteels....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [AsyncWeb] Need an async client now
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:20:32 GMT
On Feb 11, 2008 7:37 AM, Mike Heath <mheath@apache.org> wrote:

> The new logging features in SLF4J and removing IoSessionLogger were what
> was holding up an M1 release.  Where do we stand on the logging front
> right now?


see my comments on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA-513

"IoSessionLogger has been removed, but I could not yet add MDC-aware
Formatter implementations because the new SLF4J hasn't been released. "

Meanwhile Ceki has published an SLF4J-API-1.5.0-M0 in maven.
I will commit the formatter asap (hopefully tonight CET) and close this
issue.

Maarten



>
> -Mike
>
> Maarten Bosteels wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2008 9:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 10, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Maarten Bosteels wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 10, 2008 5:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Is it ready?  You're only at M1.  What are the next milestones
> >>>> planned
> >>>> before you hit beta?
> >>>
> >>> The version numbering scheme is described at the bottom of
> >>> http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html [1]
> >>>
> >>> IMO we should have created 2.0-M0 a few months ago. But for some
> >>> reason we
> >>> have been postponing it as long as there were open JIRA issues that
> >>> could
> >>> require an API change.
> >>>
> >>> According to [1] we are allowed to make API changes between M1 and M2
> >>> but of course it's nicer for the user if we can avoid it.
> >>>
> >>> I just had a look at JIRA at there were more open issues than I
> >>> thought (6)
> >>> but no show-stoppers AFAICS.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we should have a vote about cutting 2.0-M0 ?
> >> Maybe I'm being dense.  You mean 2.0-RC1?  When do you guys cut a
> >> branch to stabilize your beta?  Does it depend on the situation?
> >>
> >
> > Good question.
> >
> > In my very humble opinion "cutting 2-0-M1" means :
> > (a) creating a 2.0 branch
> > and
> > (b) creating a 2.0-M1 tag
> >
> > All further development for 2.0 would then happen on the 2.0 branch
> instead
> > of on the trunk.
> > Isn't that the usual way to proceed ?
> >
> > Maarten
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message