> > > Is that OK with everyone? Mark?
Gee guys, I wasn't up this morning at 1am PDT...sorry. :-)
I agree that the number of duplicate classes is getting to be too much. Now that Paul and Scott have core cvs access, then yes, they should start moving the classes over. Looks like they already did.
Yes, Paul performed the move. Thanks Paul!
> > Regardless of what gets committed into log4j-proper, we can always > revert if need be. That is one of the advantages of using a version > control system. Event files that get removed by CVS actually go to the > CVS attic, they can be resuscitated if need be. > > Peer review can be performed independently of the location of the > file. Having duplicates just increases the maintenance pain without > any tangible advantages, AFAIT.
Yes, but I think we had better plan some time and effort for peer review. I'd also like any related test classes to be reviewed to see if they should be extended to test the new changes.
Excellent points but the files that require review need not be in the sandbox, do they?
-Mark
--
Ceki For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
