To be honest. Slf4J is really mature. The fact that we need some 'special treatment' for maven worries me. Are we are trying to do things with slf4j-simple it never was intended for? Again: I think sjf4j is really mature, so I guess the error is on our side. And you also mentioned that Ceki did special changes in slf4j _itself_ and not only the simple logger? That worries me even more, what changes have that been?
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:33 AM > Subject: Re: Logging > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > >> trying to be concise and neutral >> >> 1. because slf4j-api is well known, it has lots of back-ends, that will >> provide powerfull configuration techniques for filtering, display, > recording and >> so on Maven output: precise use case still need to be described >> >> 2. the discussion is not much about the api but about the default back-end >> that will be shipped with Maven: there is no consensus, then the actual >> strategy is to start with slf4j-simple in Maven 3.1.0 then have a vote to >> choose which more complete implementation will go in Maven 3.1.1+ >> > > We're blocked on using SLF4J Simple currently. We can wait for my patches to > be reviewed, but we should probably start the vote for the implementation if > that is what we require because after making several patches already I think > it's just time to pick an implementation. As I said in my previous email > we're so close to Christmas we might as well decide this and then fire up > the release process in the new year after the logging implementation > selection > is made. It's highly unlikely that in the next few weeks testing a new > version of Maven is going to be anyone's priority so we might as well take > our time at this point. > >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> Le dimanche 9 décembre 2012 22:18:51 Chris Graham a écrit : >>> I got lost (in other work) and this thread a long time ago. >>> >>> Can someone please remind me just why we are changing the logging at > all? >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Kristian Rosenvold < >>> >>> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 2012/12/9 Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>: >>>>> Perso I'm fine using log4j2. >>>>> I use the branch I pushed for some weeks now and I'm happy. >>>>> Log4j2 has quickly added a feature I needed and release it. >>>>> Furthermore I'm fine working with an Apache community in > case of any >>>>> issue we could have. >>>> >>>> I'm not entirely sure I follow where this discussion is > actually >>>> going, but I'm firmly opposed >>>> to including a brand new logging framework as default in m3. >>>> >>>> Kristian >>>> >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > --------------------------------------------------------- > > We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. > > -- Unknown > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
