Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-56044-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 92693 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2004 12:51:42 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2004 12:51:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 16827 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2004 12:51:39 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16680 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2004 12:51:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dev-subscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Developers List" <dev.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 16663 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2004 12:51:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO rs9.luxsci.com) (66.216.98.59)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2004 12:51:38 -0000
Received: from groovey (adsl-49-176.swiftdsl.com.au [218.214.49.176])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by rs9.luxsci.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i22CpZVk013790
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT)
	for <dev@ant.apache.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 06:51:38 -0600
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:51:31 +1100
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: <depends/> and no-op output
References: <20040302114548.73660.qmail@web20419.mail.yahoo.com>
From: Conor MacNeill <conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Organization: Cortex
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <opr38jb5xal63u2z@smtp-5.luxsci.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040302114548.73660.qmail@web20419.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Opera7.23/Win32 M2 build 3227
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 03:45:48 -0800 (PST), Matt Benson 
<gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If we're going to change the loglevel I don't think
> it's really necessary to wait for a major release.  I
> was only pointing out the potential for an issue.  I
> may tend to play devil's advocate at times and argue a
> case on pure principle.  :)  As Stefan said, the
> actual risk is very low.
>

Yep. Let's just do it. I'm the original offender. IMHO, there are certain 
lengths we go to to avoid breaking backward compatability but the content 
and level of log messages is not one of them.

Conor

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