On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| Log4j developers are proud to announce the availability of log4j
| version 1.2.10. This version adds native support for SLF4J, along with
| a minor bug fix. The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is
| intended to serve as a simple facade for
Message-
From: Endre Stølsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:33 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc: log4j-user@logging.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
|
| Log4j developers are proud to announce
On Apr 29, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Log4j developers are proud to announce the availability of log4j
version 1.2.10. This version adds native support for SLF4J, along with
a minor bug fix. The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is
intended to serve as a simple facade for various
I have added a mild disclaimer to binary distributions page in the CVS
for logging-site. I also added a link to the cvsweb for
logging-chainsaw. At the moment, the pages served by
logging.apache.org do not show either modification. I'm hoping it is a
replication lag.
Given that there was
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 4/30/2005 8:57 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject:Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10
I have added a mild disclaimer to binary distributions page in the CVS
for logging-site. I also added a link to the cvsweb for
logging-chainsaw. At the moment
Hi,
It would have been nice to have a vote on this release, no? ;)
No big deal. Thanks for putting it together so quickly.
Yoav Shapira
System Design and Management Fellow
MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering
Cambridge, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Yoav,
Given that this release mimics the code that is already on the main
branch, and that it is 100% backward compatible with 1.2.9 (no
exceptions, buts or ifs), I do not expect any controversy surrounding
this release.
Congratulations by the way! :-)
At 20:19 4/29/2005, Yoav Shapira wrote:
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10
Hi Yoav,
Given that this release mimics the code that is already on the main
branch, and that it is 100% backward compatible with 1.2.9 (no
exceptions, buts or ifs), I do not expect any controversy surrounding
this release
Developers List'
Subject: RE: Release of log4j version 1.2.10
OK, so I would have voted for the release, but isn't there a process we
are
supposed to follow here? Something about the sub-project voting and the
PMC
approving, etc. ?
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü
I'm very much concerned. Much of the code in log4j 1.2.10 was only in
the CVS a few hours and last night's Gump build failed. It seems
amazing for a maintenance release to be rushed so quickly.
The following things trouble me:
1. Release of 1.2.10 with no vote
2. Preparation of 1.2.10
The idea of migration to SLF4J from UGLI was discussed several weeks
ago and was received favorably. Moreover, the SLF4J code is not new.
Actually, SLF4J has been part of log4j HEAD with a different name
(UGLI) for over 10 months. At present time, SLF4j is also part of CVS
HEAD.
SLF4J solves some
On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
The idea of migration to SLF4J from UGLI was discussed several weeks
ago and was received favorably. Moreover, the SLF4J code is not new.
Actually, SLF4J has been part of log4j HEAD with a different name
(UGLI) for over 10 months. At present time,
Please note that the 1.2.10 release is 100% compatible with previous
1.2 releases. I really was not expecting a controversy surrounding
this release. Consequently, I may have rushed it a little, hoping for
your continued support and understanding.
Forget any controversy or lack thereof, there's
13 matches
Mail list logo
