On Oct 9, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> Can we drive to a resolution on this issue? Does this require a vote? I'd
> like to do something to get the receivers and component code and Chainsaw out
> of purgatory. I would prefer to either pull receivers and component in to
> core (sin
The recent choice to pull some classes but not all of receivers in to
core seems to reinforce the idea they all just belong there.
On Oct 9, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
Can we drive to a resolution on this issue? Does this require a
vote? I'd like to do something to get the rece
Can we drive to a resolution on this issue? Does this require a vote? I'd
like to do something to get the receivers and component code and Chainsaw
out of purgatory. I would prefer to either pull receivers and component in
to core (since the dom defines these objects and it seems to have things
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project logging-log4j-receivers has an issue affecting its community
integration.
