logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: slf4j and log4j
Date Tue, 03 May 2005 16:02:54 GMT

On May 3, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Endre Stølsvik wrote:

> On Sun, 1 May 2005, Ceki Gülcü 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.
>
> Why don't you put the trace-level into the 1.2 branch, then??


Please read every message on the LIST (all the topics are intertwined) 
since "Why does SLF4J need to be in log4j, particularly logj4-12" on 
April 29th to understand the response to the unexpected changes to the 
1.2 branch and the unsanctioned release of 1.2.10.  The emergency 
response phase, log4j 1.2.10 has been pulled, but things are not back 
to normal.


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


Mime
View raw message