I don't have a vote, but in spirit I'm definitely +1.
At this point I'd be quite happy requiring Java 6. In fact the log4j I
use is patched with several locking improvements one of which requires
Java 6.
--
Jess Holle
On 4/10/2012 6:19 AM, Jacob Kjome wrote:
+1
Of course, I'd also like to see (copied from one of my previous posts)...
Extract LF5 and chainsaw 1.x from log4j.jar and release them as
separate > jars, thus removing bloat from the Log4j library. They
are not libraries, > but desktop tools, and can depend on the
absolute latest version of Java for > all I care.
Jake
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:35:47 +0200
Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
before easter we have discussed this already. I would like to remove
jdk 1.3 support with the next log4j version 1.2.17. Because there are
so many feelings out there, I would like to call out this vote before.
[] +1 go ahead
[] 0, don't care
[] -1 don't because...
I'll leave it open for the usual 72 hours. After that I will update
the pom files.
Cheers
Christian
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
