You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org> on 2004/12/10 18:12:04 UTC
Approach to historical Bugzilla issues
Hi,
I was just taking a look in Bugzilla to see what's happening. There are 206
open issues for log4j. The vast majority of them, naturally, are filed against
log4j 1.2. There are significant amounts of issues filed against deprecated
items, such as the JDBCAppender and DOMConfigurator. In addition, there are at
least a few that are old: easily more than a year, sometimes more than 2 or 3
years.
Now that log4j 1.3 alpha is out, and development is going at a great pace
towards a stable 1.3 release, do we a policy for closing or otherwise dealing
with these old and irrelevant issues?
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
Re: Approach to historical Bugzilla issues
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
OK. I've started and will continue to make an effort to go through these
issues, resolving them as I see fit. To state the obvious, if anyone disagrees
with the resolution they can always reopen the bug and update it as needed
(update to log4j 1.3, state why it shouldn't be closed, etc.).
And a good weekend to all,
Yoav
--- Ceki G�lc� <ce...@qos.ch> wrote:
> At 06:12 PM 12/10/2004, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I was just taking a look in Bugzilla to see what's happening. There are 206
> >open issues for log4j. The vast majority of them, naturally, are filed
> >against
> >log4j 1.2. There are significant amounts of issues filed against deprecated
> >items, such as the JDBCAppender and DOMConfigurator. In addition, there
> >are at
> >least a few that are old: easily more than a year, sometimes more than 2 or
> 3
> >years.
> >
> >Now that log4j 1.3 alpha is out, and development is going at a great pace
> >towards a stable 1.3 release, do we a policy for closing or otherwise
> dealing
> >with these old and irrelevant issues?
>
> It's hard to generalize but when report clearly relates to a deprecated
> item, then referring to 1.3 and then closing it, would seem reasonable.
>
> >Yoav
>
> --
> Ceki G�lc�
>
> The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/log4j/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Approach to historical Bugzilla issues
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 06:12 PM 12/10/2004, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>Hi,
>I was just taking a look in Bugzilla to see what's happening. There are 206
>open issues for log4j. The vast majority of them, naturally, are filed
>against
>log4j 1.2. There are significant amounts of issues filed against deprecated
>items, such as the JDBCAppender and DOMConfigurator. In addition, there
>are at
>least a few that are old: easily more than a year, sometimes more than 2 or 3
>years.
>
>Now that log4j 1.3 alpha is out, and development is going at a great pace
>towards a stable 1.3 release, do we a policy for closing or otherwise dealing
>with these old and irrelevant issues?
It's hard to generalize but when report clearly relates to a deprecated
item, then referring to 1.3 and then closing it, would seem reasonable.
>Yoav
--
Ceki Gülcü
The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/log4j/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org