On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think adding things to core at this point adds an expectation on > log4j 2.0 at all personally.
+1 Actually I can't understand this argumentation. Its just blocking. I mean - don't make log4j1.2.x to good, because people will be disappointed for 2.0? I would prefer: 1.2 has become pretty old, lets make the best out of it. And afterwards we'll help on 2.0 making it even better. > I'm against creating a logging attic. > Receivers are the other half of appenders. Unless you only care about > fileappenders, they have utility. > > I'd still prefer to see things moved in to core. Our DTD defines things in > component (plugins, etc)...why those don't belong next to domconfigurator > I'm not sure. > > Scott > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I used Nexus for the last release of log4j and struggled with it. If I >> remember correctly there were issues with our Maven group ID not starting >> with org.apache that prevented the release from being mirrored to Maven >> central, but think we finally worked through all the issues. >> >> I would not be in favor of moving components into log4j-core. Moving the >> tests into core would be a chore and users would have the expectation that >> anything in core would be supported in some manner with log4j 2.0. There >> will be disappointment anyway, but we shouldn't pile anything more into >> log4j-core that we can't carry over into log4j 2.0. >> >> It looks like the receivers and companions source code was moved into >> chainsaw with copy and then svn add. Unfortunately that loses all history >> behind the code. Using svn cp would preserve that. >> >> I'd suggest creating logging/attic, svn mv'ing component and receivers >> there. It may be good to delete the recent copy and pasted code checked into >> Chainsaw with svn cp's so the code history is preserved. >> >> On Webstart, there have been discussions over several years about >> providing a code signing facility for Apache binaries specifically for the >> web server so that crashes can be collected from Microsoft's crash reporting >> systems. I do not know if that ever progressed. >> >> While Webstart is attractive, it may be hard to bring it into line with >> Apache release policy. I'm pretty sure that it is not mirrored or GPG signed >> for example. If it is mirrored, then I'm sure users will not be checking >> signatures to make sure that they are getting the legitimate ASF Chainsaw >> and not some other Chainsaw. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
