The Apache Logging Services team is sorry to announce that we are recalling
log4j version 1.2.10, due to procedural issues under discussion. Please
discard copies of the release and revert to 1.2.9.
We hope to make a new release, 1.2.11, available shortly. Its release notes
will contain more inf
Those still interested in log4j-1.2.10 can download it as
"not-log4j.1.2.10". The
URL is:
http://www.slf4j.org/download.html
At 16:14 5/1/2005, you wrote:
The Apache Logging Services team is sorry to announce that we are recalling
log4j version 1.2.10, due to procedural issues under discussion.
At 06:49 5/1/2005, you wrote:
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:09 -0500, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> >I am not a member of the slf4j team, so I cannot speak to it's goals,
etc.
>
> I think just about any Log4j committer is part of the slf4j team, unless I
> am mistaken. I'm guessing that this probably also ext
I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
Fortunately, this is open source where we can take our marbles and play
elsewhere.
At 03:16 5/1
One excuse gone. 99 to go.
At 06:34 5/1/2005, Mark Womack wrote:
Starting a thread specific to the licensing issue.
Echoing Curt's concerns related to the 1.2.10 release, I told Ceki
privately that we (LS PMC) would need to understand the licensing issues
around slf4j as part of any approval of a
Hi Ceki,
At 07:57 PM 5/1/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>
>I don't want to be dismissive but these are just a bunch of excuses. Sure,
>the objections are all reasonable and all, but at the end of the day they
>boil down to excuses preventing forward movement.
>
By this definition, there is no such thing as
