Hi, OK. I've started and will continue to make an effort to go through these issues, resolving them as I see fit. To state the obvious, if anyone disagrees with the resolution they can always reopen the bug and update it as needed (update to log4j 1.3, state why it shouldn't be closed, etc.).
And a good weekend to all, Yoav --- Ceki G�lc� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:12 PM 12/10/2004, Yoav Shapira wrote: > >Hi, > >I was just taking a look in Bugzilla to see what's happening. There are 206 > >open issues for log4j. The vast majority of them, naturally, are filed > >against > >log4j 1.2. There are significant amounts of issues filed against deprecated > >items, such as the JDBCAppender and DOMConfigurator. In addition, there > >are at > >least a few that are old: easily more than a year, sometimes more than 2 or > 3 > >years. > > > >Now that log4j 1.3 alpha is out, and development is going at a great pace > >towards a stable 1.3 release, do we a policy for closing or otherwise > dealing > >with these old and irrelevant issues? > > It's hard to generalize but when report clearly relates to a deprecated > item, then referring to 1.3 and then closing it, would seem reasonable. > > >Yoav > > -- > Ceki G�lc� > > The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
