On May 3, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
| the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
| boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
Why don't you put the trace-level into the 1.2 branch, then??
Please read every message on the LIST (all the topics are intertwined) since "Why does SLF4J need to be in log4j, particularly logj4-12" on April 29th to understand the response to the unexpected changes to the 1.2 branch and the unsanctioned release of 1.2.10. The emergency response phase, log4j 1.2.10 has been pulled, but things are not back to normal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
