Niclas et al.,
IMHO, the kind of urgent pleas as the one by Niclas (quoted below) are
quite inappropriate. We, the log4j developers, have the right to
occasionally fuck up like every one else. The fact that a small typo
affects 200 projects should tell you that something is wrong with
Gump's current approach.
When a totally silly problem attains such cataclysmic proportions, it
puts us (log4j developers) under unnecessary and useless
pressure. Please revise your model so that a silly mistake can be
sidestepped without affecting 200 projects. For example, just alerting
log4j-dev and having the 200 affected projects to use yesterday's
version of log4j would have been much better.
I am pleased to see that the problem on our side was corrected
promptly. I am much less so with nature of the social interaction that
led to it.
At 07:37 AM 12/14/2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
May I suggest a revert of the change first, and then think about how it
should
be done?? :o) (only 200 projects are affected...)
Cheers
Niclas
--
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual:
https://www.qos.ch/shop/products/log4j/log4j-Manual.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
