Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

No probs Curt, you're going flat out with stuff, I figured I should try to do something to make myself useful to the team. :) If it's an itch you want to scratch feel free to take it, but if you can think of something else I could help out with let me know. Otherwise I'll just be cheering

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On May 17, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Paul Smith wrote: Is there a specific reason that Paul is assigned to do the jDiff report (i.e. previous involvement with jDiff, etc)? I've got a high priority task at the moment, but expect I could get it done today or tomorrow. Other than I wouldn't mind doin

Clover coverage report

I'm still trying to work out some of the kinks with the Clover coverage report. I'm going to have to do some tweaks to tests/ build.xml to get the process repeatable, but I did manage to nurse a run to completion and have placed the results at http:// home.houston.rr.com/curta/coverage-20050

cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml

sdeboy 2005/05/17 22:16:12 Modified:.build.xml Log: added build.db dependency to db.jar target (db jar was being built but with no class files) Revision ChangesPath 1.159 +1 -1 logging-log4j/build.xml Index: build.xml

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/slf4j/org/slf4j LoggerFactory.java

carnold 2005/05/17 21:36:25 Modified:.build.properties.sample build.xml src/slf4j/org/apache/log4j ULogger.java src/slf4j/org/slf4j LoggerFactory.java Log: Bug 34883: SLF4J support updated for beta3 (o.s.Logger instead of o.s.ULogger) Revisi

Re: JDiff report: confirmation

Actually, I think the tag is "v1_2_9". But that is the last official release, so yes. -Mark - Original Message - From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:14 PM Subject: JDiff report: confirmation I'm just confirming that I shoul

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

Is there a specific reason that Paul is assigned to do the jDiff report (i.e. previous involvement with jDiff, etc)? I've got a high priority task at the moment, but expect I could get it done today or tomorrow. Other than I wouldn't mind doing _something_ ?

RE: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

Only that Paul said he was looking for someone to say what needed to be done, and that was a task I thought of. But if you can get it done sooner, go for it. Work it out with Paul. I plan to organize the tasks for the 1.3 release soon, so there will be more that falls out of that as well. -Mark

JDiff report: confirmation

I'm just confirming that I should be doing the diff against CVS tag 'v_1_2_9', correct? cheers, Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On 18/05/2005, at 2:32 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:On May 16, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Mark Womack wrote: I figured that a "[VOTE]" message would get folks more interested indiscussing.  :-)  Here is proposal #2.Assume that we will adequately inform the user base what is going on withthe versions, starting wit

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34945] New: - ThrowableInformation has dubious Stack Trace extraction feature

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

Yes +1 to the overall plan, sorry, that wasn't very clear of me was it.. :) On 18/05/2005, at 1:59 AM, Mark Womack wrote: So, Paul, you are +1 on the overall proposal? Hashing out the specific bug fixes for 1.2.12 is a TBD. I was not suggesting that these specific fixes had to go in as par

RE: [VOTE] Release Overview

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 May 2005 04:49 > To: Log4J Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Overview > > > On May 12, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Andy McBride wrote: > > > Hi, > > The current cvs head contains breaking changes includi

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On May 17, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Mark Womack wrote: So, Paul, you are +1 on the overall proposal? Hashing out the specific bug fixes for 1.2.12 is a TBD. I was not suggesting that these specific fixes had to go in as part of the proposal. Appreciate the quick review. And, of course, when you

RE: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

So, Paul, you are +1 on the overall proposal? Hashing out the specific bug fixes for 1.2.12 is a TBD. I was not suggesting that these specific fixes had to go in as part of the proposal. Appreciate the quick review. And, of course, when you get a chance to do the jDiff report, that will be grea

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 10:02 +1000, Paul Smith wrote: > 24159 - Deadlock prevention - I appreciate the intent of trying to > solve this curly one, but it's going to be a tough one to test and > get right. Just flagging this one has a high risk item. To fix it requires changes to the AppenderS

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On May 16, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Mark Womack wrote: I figured that a "[VOTE]" message would get folks more interested in discussing. :-) Here is proposal #2. Assume that we will adequately inform the user base what is going on with the versions, starting with a detailed email to the user list. 1

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 09:53 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: > I figured that a "[VOTE]" message would get folks more interested in > discussing. :-) Here is proposal #2. Sounds good. (Sounds like my proposal.) - To unsubscribe, e-m

Re: [VOTE] Release Overview Proposal 2

1) Release 1.2.11 with JMS build fix. Timeframe is immediate, within the next week. +1 2) Release a 1.2.12 version with the TRACE change. I think we should consider only major bug fixes for inclusion as well, but keep it within reason. Timeframe is within a month of the 1.2.11 release. Spe