to
deprecate more stuff currently deprecated on the cvs head, just to give
folks more of a heads up.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:46 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Overview Proposal
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
| At 20:37 5/18/2005, you wrote:
| There seems to be fairly broad support for it. No one voted -1 for the
| proposal.
|
| It is in addition to the constants and methods that are already there, so it
| (hopefully) meets the requirement of not being harmful
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Scott Deboy wrote:
| I personally see TRACE as unrelated to severity, so if I were to have
| unlimited resources, I'd prefer to implement per-event attributes
| instead.
Trace and debug are not -severity-. Fatal, Warn, Error and
Info are.
Trace and debug are both
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Endre Stølsvik wrote:
.. reading my mail again, I spot a slight mis-formulation:
| Things logged on trace aren't more severe than debug
| as such, but maybe kinda a more major event that would give nice
| context-information to other prod-levels/debug/trace lines.
Swap
The following release overview/schedule was accepted:
1) Release 1.2.11 with JMS build fix. Timeframe is immediate, within the
next week.
NOTE: Mark will work on this release candidate end of this week, this
weekend. We should have something by Monday.
2) Release a 1.2.12 version with the
At 18:21 5/18/2005, Mark Womack wrote:
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.
Mark, are you sure everyone is interested in adding the
][RESULT] Release Overview Proposal
At 18:21 5/18/2005, Mark Womack wrote:
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.
Mark, are you
At 20:37 5/18/2005, you wrote:
There seems to be fairly broad support for it. No one voted -1 for the
proposal.
It is in addition to the constants and methods that are already there, so it
(hopefully) meets the requirement of not being harmful to existing
deployments. Developers that have
On May 18, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
I'd lean against adding the TRACE level to the 1.2 branch. Scott
and Jake may feel the same way. In my opinion, the TRACE level
promotes bad habits, especially in light of the confusion between
TRACE and DEBUG. There is also the question of
' the 'authentication' process, I enable logging for
events with the 'authentication' attribute.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Glc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 12:54 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject:RE: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Overview Proposal
been working on and releasing alpha
versions of.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:54 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: [VOTE][RESULT] Release Overview Proposal
At 20:37 5/18/2005, you wrote:
There seems
11 matches
Mail list logo
