On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since we never had offiical release of receivers or component, is it ok to > nuke them from subversion now?
Probably we should make a new mail thread with [ANN] in the subject to make sure everybody reads, give 72h and then svn delete > > Christian, do you mind doing site-related stuff? Yes, can do it somewhen this week > I'll update wording on the Chainsaw page and update the screenshots...and I > think we could be ready soon to vote on a release.. Cool!! > Not sure what to do about web start...thoughts? Can you explain, I am not aware on what exactly the question is - sorry Cheers Christian > Scott > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Christian, >> >> Extras are useful and should be kept around as is, unless we choose to >> pull them back in to core... >> >> I agree, replacing companions with just extras seems to be a good choice. >> >> Scott >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > OK, I pulled receivers and component companion sources into Chainsaw in >>> > svn >>> > 1178304. Is deleting the entire component and receivers companions >>> > hierarchy from svn sufficient or do I need to do something else? >>> >>> we need to update the website, i can help here if you like >>> >>> > There is also the question of 'companions' only being one now (extras) >>> > - not >>> > sure what to do site-wise about that. Maybe completely remove >>> > companions >>> > and just replace with 'extras'? Or keep companions and only have >>> > extras in >>> > it? >>> >>> Who is actually using extras? probably its time to go to attic too as >>> there is no development interest (have not a clue here). >>> >>> Anyway I would remove the companions completely and replace it with >>> extras, as you suggested. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Christian >>> >>> > >>> > Scott >>> > >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Christian Grobmeier >>> > <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j >>> >> > release >>> >> > at >>> >> > some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version >>> >> > of >>> >> > log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in >>> >> > the >>> >> > standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?) >>> >> >>> >> Yes, of course you are. I was thinking in the wrong direction. Seems >>> >> as I practice the "style of the drunken programmer" today. >>> >> >>> >> Cheers >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > Scott >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier >>> >> > <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy >>> >> >> <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> > I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - >>> >> >> > when >>> >> >> > log4j is >>> >> >> > released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything >>> >> >> > will >>> >> >> > still >>> >> >> > work. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the >>> >> >> new >>> >> >> release of log4j, right? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Scott >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier >>> >> >> > <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy >>> >> >> >> <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core >>> >> >> >> > from >>> >> >> >> > receivers in >>> >> >> >> > 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)... >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these >>> >> >> >> > classes >>> >> >> >> > in >>> >> >> >> > Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw >>> >> >> >> > release. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I doubt there will be a new log4j release in near future. >>> >> >> >> Therefore >>> >> >> >> I >>> >> >> >> am +1 on making Chainsaw independent. To my knowledge it is only >>> >> >> >> 3 >>> >> >> >> classes or so, I would go with duplicating them. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> But I think I would change the package to prevent a conflict >>> >> >> >> with a >>> >> >> >> later log4j which might have the same classes >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Scott >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Scott Deboy >>> >> >> >> > <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Definitely! >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Anything to simplify things and get this out the door! >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Thanks for all your help Christian, >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Scott >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier >>> >> >> >> >> <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy >>> >> >> >> >>> <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> > ok, moving ahead with removal then >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always >>> >> >> >> >>> feel >>> >> >> >> >>> good, >>> >> >> >> >>> hope it is the same feeling for you :-) >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier >>> >> >> >> >>> > <grobme...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy >>> >> >> >> >>> >> <scott.de...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > useful >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bits >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > in >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > to >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > maven >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > project >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > then? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> attic >>> >> >> >> >>> >> then >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Christian >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Scott >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > <carn...@apache.org> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> Chainsaw >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> an >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> OSGi >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> package and no need to add additional work. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >> >> >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> -- >>> >> >> >> >>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> >>> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >> >> >> log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.grobmeier.de >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >>> >> > > -- http://www.grobmeier.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
