Re: log4j governance (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48704] Multiple Java Process...)

2010-02-19 Thread Ceki Gülcü
On 19/02/2010 7:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: This said, why not having another election. I don't think its necessary, but if you feel better with that, lets do it. Elections should not be held just to assuage my feelings. Here is a list of team members:

Re: log4j governance (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48704] Multiple Java Process...)

2010-02-13 Thread Ceki Gülcü
On 13/02/2010 5:59 AM, Curt Arnold wrote: I am due to file another quarterly board report and will mention your concerns. You are also free to petition the ASF Board. For background for those who are new to this topic. From http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-chair:

Re: log4j governance (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48704] Multiple Java Process...)

2010-02-13 Thread Ceki Gülcü
On 13/02/2010 5:59 AM, Curt Arnold wrote: I believe the thread that you are thinking about is http://marc.info/?l=log4j-devm=122841935827332w=2. I was indeed thinking of the message you referenced above. You were arguing that log4j 1.2 should make a significant API change (changing

log4j governance (was Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 48704] Multiple Java Process...)

2010-02-12 Thread Curt Arnold
On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:29 AM, bugzi...@apache.org wrote: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48704 --- Comment #7 from Ceki Gulcu c...@apache.org 2010-02-12 14:29:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) I have not reviewed the logback implementation, but there is nothing that