[VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10

[Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>]

As a formality, I'm proposing a vote on releasing log4j 1.2.10.

As previously mentioned, I am -1 on the release at this point pending further discussion.

Scott

Re: [VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10

[Jacob Kjome <ho...@visi.com>]

At 05:07 PM 4/30/2005 -0400, you wrote:
 >Hi,
 >Obviously there are already enough -1's ;)  Let's pull the release off the
 >server, as I don't think the current disclaimer is sufficient.
 >
 >And let's start a separate thread to discuss dependence on slf4j.  I 
wonder if
 >it can be done dynamically, with runtime discovery or a similar mechanism,
 >rather than as a hard compile-time dependency.

I think Ceki's idea of having hard compile-time dependencies is the only 
solution I know of that avoids the commons-logging nightmare.  Any other 
proposed solution would have to be at least as robust.  In any case, this 
is different than the issue of whether Log4j-1.2.x or Log4j-1.3.x should 
implement the interfaces or use a facade, which is mostly what has been 
discussed over the past couple days.  In any case, I think Mark started a 
new thread, so any further comments should go there.

Jake

 >
 >Yoav
 >
 >Quoting Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>:
 >
 >> As a formality, I'm proposing a vote on releasing log4j 1.2.10.
 >>
 >> As previously mentioned, I am -1 on the release at this point pending 
further
 >> discussion.
 >>
 >> Scott
 >>
 >>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >---------------------------------------------------------------------
 >To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
 >For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10

[Yoav Shapira <yo...@MIT.EDU>]

Hi,
Obviously there are already enough -1's ;)  Let's pull the release off the
server, as I don't think the current disclaimer is sufficient.

And let's start a separate thread to discuss dependence on slf4j.  I wonder if
it can be done dynamically, with runtime discovery or a similar mechanism,
rather than as a hard compile-time dependency.

Yoav

Quoting Scott Deboy <sd...@comotivsystems.com>:

> As a formality, I'm proposing a vote on releasing log4j 1.2.10.
> 
> As previously mentioned, I am -1 on the release at this point pending further
> discussion.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10

[Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>]

-1

The process was not followed either at the log4j project level or the LS PMC 
level.  That alone is reason to pull/cancel this release.

Beyond that, I think that a review of the slf4j support is very relevant and 
should have been discussed and reviewed prior to being accepted and 
released.

-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Deboy" <sd...@comotivsystems.com>
To: "Log4J Developers List" <lo...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:41 AM
Subject: [VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10


As a formality, I'm proposing a vote on releasing log4j 1.2.10.

As previously mentioned, I am -1 on the release at this point pending 
further discussion.

Scott




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] log4j version 1.2.10

[Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>]

-1

On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:

> As a formality, I'm proposing a vote on releasing log4j 1.2.10.
>
> As previously mentioned, I am -1 on the release at this point pending  
> further discussion.
>
> Scott
>
> <winmail.dat>---------------------------------------------------------- 
> -----------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org