OK, lets do it like that.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote:
1.2.17.1?
Gary
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Then how would we number bugfixes for extras then? (unlikely, but what if)
On Sat, May 4,
Then how would we number bugfixes for extras then? (unlikely, but what if)
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
That'd work too.
On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Why not number the extras module the same as the version of log4j it
requires?
Gary
On
I have just compare all files I found duplicated.
These two have additional functionality:
FormattingInfo.java
PatternParser.java
Its just minor things, like adding of padding. I copied the features
over to log4j. If I remove these classes right now, extras would
depend on a snapshot which is
1.2.17.1?
Gary
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.comwrote:
Then how would we number bugfixes for extras then? (unlikely, but what if)
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
That'd work too.
On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, Gary Gregory
apache-log4j-extras-1.2.jar contains redundant copies of many of the
log4j classes.
This was an issue in log4j-extras 1.1 as well, so this is not new. See
the Serious log4j-extras issue thread from Dec. 7th, 2012.
As per that thread, I've had some rather nasty experiences with this in
the
Thank you for reminding me. I did a quick check, then I saw its
actually worse. I found a couple of classes which we need to look into
before can make this release. Not even that they are duplicated, I
found one class which has a different implementation. :-(
That said, I would like to require
On 5/4/2013 7:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Thank you for reminding me. I did a quick check, then I saw its
actually worse. I found a couple of classes which we need to look into
before can make this release. Not even that they are duplicated, I
found one class which has a different
Why not number the extras module the same as the version of log4j it requires?
Gary
On May 4, 2013, at 8:33, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
On 5/4/2013 7:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Thank you for reminding me. I did a quick check, then I saw its
actually worse. I found a couple of
That'd work too.
On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Why not number the extras module the same as the version of log4j it requires?
Gary
On May 4, 2013, at 8:33, Jess Holle je...@ptc.com wrote:
On 5/4/2013 7:02 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
Thank you for reminding me. I did a quick
