I like Mark's proposal. +1. Jake
Quoting Mark Womack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Actually, you beat me to this, but I have a slight alteration to your > proposal: > > Current 1.2 branch is tagged/moved to a new branch called 1_2_slf4j and will > be available for modification and "experimental" slf4j builds. The "head" > of the 1.2 branch is reverted to the previous v1.2.9 state. At that point > we will be in a position to continue work on the slf4j, whatever it will be, > and to start on a new 1.2 release if we decide to do so. > Are you still +1 with the above modifications? > > -Mark > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Curt Arnold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Log4J Developers List" <log4j-dev@logging.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:24 PM > Subject: [VOTE] Tag the CVS for 1.2.10 and revert the slf4j related changes > on 1.2 branch > > > > No CVS tags appeared to be applied to the CVS for the recalled 1.2.10 > > release. The SLF4J patches were fairly small and can be reapplied if and > > when direct implementation of SLF4J is desired for the 1.2 branch. I'd > > suggest tagging the CVS for 1.2.10 as v1_2_10_recalled and reverting the > > Logger and Category changes. > > > > +1 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
