On Sep 6, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > On 06/09/2010 11:31 AM, Ari Meyer wrote: >> Thanks Ralph -- good to see Ceki's response to the same question, albeit >> 2 yrs earlier. Makes me think I should have voiced my justifications >> for a 1.0 label years ago, as doubtless many people are likewise waiting >> for 1.0 to try out logback, but get by with log4j and don't press the >> issue. Will wait to hear me directly from Ceki on this. Thanks also >> for pointing out the issues lists. > > There is no denying that people feel more comfortable with a 1.0 release than > a 0.9 release. By the same token, people are more forgiving with breaking > changes in a 0.9 release than in a 1.0 release. The extra wiggle room had my > preference in the past. > >> On this note, here's something I dug up from over 3 yrs ago, including >> the "1.0 release" question: http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/08/logback. >> Again this brings me back to my related question: /Are there some >> must-have features that have yet to be implemented?/ > > There are no must-have features missing but I still have a few significant > improvements I'd like to make before going 1.0.
I don't suppose support for structured data is one of them? Ralph
_______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list [email protected] http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user
