Well, one can argue that build changes should be deprioritized. I'm the one
that is using it to do the official builds and releases, so I might have a
biased view. But I don't agree with the documentation. We REALLY need to
do something. I think our current state is pretty shameful. I'd like to
get more community involvement, but there hasn't been much reaction. I'd
like to set it up and then have it evolve on its own track. I don't
consider it a "pure enhancement".
But the code cleanup and review should come first.
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Log4J Developers List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: log4j 1.3 prioritized tasks
On 22/12/2005, at 1:29 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hi,
I'm OK with this prioritation except for one thing: build changes
should be just about last, or possibly 2nd to last together with
documentation, as they are a pure enhancement and not a must-have by
any stretch.
+1 build + site work right now, not elegant, a touch messy, but it works.
1.3 has dragged on too long lets focus on it.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
