Then how would we number bugfixes for extras then? (unlikely, but what if) On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: > That'd work too. > > > On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >> Why not number the extras module the same as the version of log4j it >> requires? >> >> Gary >> >> On May 4, 2013, at 8:33, Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/4/2013 7:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you for reminding me. I did a quick check, then I saw its >>>> actually worse. I found a couple of classes which we need to look into >>>> before can make this release. Not even that they are duplicated, I >>>> found one class which has a different implementation. :-( >>> >>> Wow! I'd have assumed that the classes were just copied over from some >>> log4j 1.2.x version or another. Perhaps they were and then someone felt >>> like improving upon them and didn't understand their ancestry. >>>> >>>> That said, I would like to require companions 1.2 at least 1.2.16 if >>>> not 1.2.17. Jess, would this work for you? >>> >>> I'm absolutely fine with requiring 1.2.17. >>> >>> -- >>> Jess Holle >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> >> >
-- 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
