Great!!! You're the man! What does it usually take until artifacts are propagated to maven central ?
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Apache <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh - we do have to finalize how to get the new Scala project on the web > site but that actually doesn’t have to be part of the Log4j release. > > Ralph > > > On Feb 26, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Apache <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Well, this was the last bug that I saw that was critical to get fixed so > I might start the release today - unless something gets in my way. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Shlomi Hazan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> The broken rolling file appender - LOG4J2-1804 (sorry for duplicating it > >> with LOG4J2-1821) > >> has a very wide effect on our log collection across many servers, > >> and it would be a great deal of effort to update and test all the > >> configuration files to walk around the issue. > >> > >> My question is - how fast can users expect a 2.8.1 fix version to be GA? > >> I need to know that to decide how to handle the situation before the > code > >> goes into production. > >> > >> I saw Dr. David Akehurst asking for a version as well for LOG4J2-1799, > >> and seeing Ralph's (Goers) response I understand that you guys cant just > >> pop a version for every bug fix, > >> but the rolling appender issue is really breaking a very fundamental > >> logging behavior, > >> so I must be in a rather large group of users affected. > >> As a matter of fact - any user that happened to use a rolling pattern > that > >> does not prepend the '%i' with a dash. > >> > >> Anyway, I hope it's not our of the question for you guys to be able to > kick > >> out a version within like a week or so, > >> but if that is not the case just let us know. > >> > >> Appreciate your work, > >> Shlomi > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
