Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market

On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 22:16 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: > But slf4j has only been around for a month and half? Isn't it a bit early > to call it a mistake? Sounds like there needs to be some more evangelizing > of the JCL camp. Has the slf4j community grown in any way since its > inception? >

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Thanks. Guess I'll go upgrade. -Mark - Original Message - From: "Simon Kitching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build Changes from Ant 1.6.2 to Ant 1.6.3 === Changes that c

Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market

- Original Message - From: "Niclas Hedhman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Log4J Developers List'" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market Gang, Trying not to be sarchastic or disrespectful, and only giving a hint of how I perceive stuff

Re: Revisiting Log4j Releases

On Monday 23 May 2005 12:44, Mark Womack wrote: > Option 2 - 1.2.11 with just jms (and maybe throw in the bug fixes for the > current 1.2.12 scheduled release).  1.3 based on last release of 1.2.X with > the TRACE changes and some more deprecation in prep for the next major > release.  1.4 release

Revisiting Log4j Releases

OK, so maybe I was a bit hasty in having the vote for all the release numbers, but really, folks can -1 my proposals without having to worry about my feelings. Really. And, by calling the vote, I want to follow it up with action, not just have the discussion fad into obscurity. However you w

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Changes from Ant 1.6.2 to Ant 1.6.3 === Changes that could break older environments: * The subant task used the canonical version of a file path. This has been changed to use the absolute path. Bugzilla 30438. * Tar

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Hm. I am using Ant 1.6.2, which should have the fix? -Mark - Original Message - From: "Simon Kitching" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 9:02 PM Subject: Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 13:48 +1000, Paul Smith wrote: yep, that ta

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 13:48 +1000, Paul Smith wrote: > yep, that tar's downloading ok. > > The tar has an error when unpacking though, or maybe it's just a > warning. When I do > > tar xfz logg*.tar.gz > > I get: > > tar: A lone zero block at 18809 That's a known bug in the Ant tar task: se

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

yep, that tar's downloading ok. The tar has an error when unpacking though, or maybe it's just a warning. When I do tar xfz logg*.tar.gz I get: tar: A lone zero block at 18809 The directory compare byte for byte with the Zip bundle though, so this may just be a warning. I'm using Mac O

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Initial scan that I've found are (and these are probably just left over stuff from 1.2.8/9 release) * LICENSE.txt is 1.1 License. Do we need to update that to 2.0? * INSTALL file references the old 'jakarta' directory naming days. Do we want to update that? I'm sure it won't hinder people,

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Try it now. forgot to apply the right chmod. -Mark - Original Message - From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 8:27 PM Subject: Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build I'm getting "Forbidden" on the tar. cheers, Paul On 23/05/2005, at 1:25 PM,

Re: 1.2.11rc1 Build

I'm getting "Forbidden" on the tar. cheers, Paul On 23/05/2005, at 1:25 PM, Mark Womack wrote: I went ahead with an official build of the current 1_2branch for the 1.2.11 release. The result is an rc1 version that can be accessed at: http://people.apache.org/~mwomack/log4j-1.2.11rc1/ I

1.2.11rc1 Build

I went ahead with an official build of the current 1_2branch for the 1.2.11 release. The result is an rc1 version that can be accessed at: http://people.apache.org/~mwomack/log4j-1.2.11rc1/ I want to take a couple days making sure all is happy with this build since this is my first official b

cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml

mwomack 2005/05/22 19:18:37 Modified:.Tag: v1_2-branch build.xml Log: Defined distribution directory property, and use through out targets. Modified clean target to remove entire dist dir, not just dist/classes. Revision ChangesPath No revision

cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml

mwomack 2005/05/22 19:03:36 Modified:.Tag: v1_2-branch build.xml Log: Changed version number to 1.2.11rc1 in prep for release candidate. Revision ChangesPath No revision No revision 1.34.2.17 +1 -1 logging-log4j/build.x

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

mwomack 2005/05/22 17:38:05 Removed: src/java/org/slf4j Tag: v1_2-branch LoggerFactory.java LoggerFactoryAdapter.java ULogger.java Log: Removing more slf4j stuff from main 1.2 branch. - To un

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j AppenderSkeleton.java DailyRollingFileAppender.java RollingFileAppender.java

carnold 2005/05/22 17:21:56 Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j AppenderSkeleton.java DailyRollingFileAppender.java RollingFileAppender.java Log: Removal of last remnants of abandoned renaming to OptionConverter.activate Revision C

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/pattern package.html

carnold 2005/05/22 00:57:07 Added: src/java/org/apache/log4j/pattern package.html Log: Bug 34979: Refactor rolling file appenders to use pattern layout parser and converters Revision ChangesPath 1.1 logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/pattern/pack

cvs commit: logging-log4j/tests/src/java/org/apache/log4j/rolling/helper FileNamePatternTestCase.java

carnold 2005/05/22 00:56:23 Modified:examples/src/pattern CountingPatternConverter.java src/java/org/apache/log4j PatternLayout.java src/java/org/apache/log4j/html HTMLLayout.java src/java/org/apache/log4j/net SMTPAppender.java

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34979] - org.apache.log4j.rolling refactoring

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

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35009] - Add checkstyle and jalopy targets to build.xml's

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

cvs commit: logging-log4j/src sun_checks.xml

carnold 2005/05/22 00:32:17 Modified:.build.xml build.properties.sample testsbuild.xml build.properties.sample src sun_checks.xml Log: Bug 35009: Jalopy and checkstyle targets in build.xml Revision ChangesPath 1.160 +37 -

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35009] New: - Add checkstyle and jalopy targets to build.xml's

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