logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Smith <psm...@aconex.com>
Subject Re: Chainsaw & log4j 1.2 status
Date Sun, 22 Apr 2007 05:21:53 GMT
>
> I've committed a PluginConfigurator to both the component and log4j  
> 1.3 and copied the LoggerRepositoryExImpl over to log4j 1.3.
>

Thanks, I'll give that a crack and see what we get.
>

> Been annoying trying to fix bugs in both branches and I have  
> effectively stopped fixing bugs on the log4j 1.3 branch.  It is a  
> pretty substantial effort to work through the rest of Elias's  
> changes and fix things up for another release.
>

there's only a couple of 1.3 related issues we might want to  
consider, and then go to the discussion of an end-of-life for 1.3:

1.3 worth considering
=====================
	Bug 37736 - LoggerEventListener's appenderRemovedEvent() and  
levelChangedEvent() methods are never called
	Bug 38411 - Setting threshold on RollingFileAppender fails on 1.3 alpha
	Bug 41229 - jmxtools missing from pom.xml
		This is already done in trunk, so can be closed off already.
	Bug 41934 - DailyRollingFileAppender must chang as below
		At the very least needs to be set to NEEDINFO
	Bug 42171 - SocketHubReceiver duplicates messages
		port to the receivers sandbox too


>
>>> I'd expect that we'd have a release push for log4j 1.2.x. and the  
>>> companions when the PatternLayout backport looks reasonable.  I  
>>> cut a log4j 1.2.15 release candidate at the end of February (died  
>>> for lack of quorum on the release vote) and people had been  
>>> asking about it since December.
>>
>> We need to all talk together about the issue of quorum as a  
>> group.  We don't have a huge number of log4j PMC members as it is,  
>> and some of them have been busy, or working on other things.   At  
>> some point we'll need to vote on something (a decision to  
>> discontinue 1.3 and moving on to 2.0 designs for example), so we  
>> probably shouldn't ignore it for too long.  Perhaps we need a  
>> discussion about where people are at?
>>
>
> I pushed as hard as I could to get responses on the log4j 1.2.15  
> release vote.  If we could have a discussion on why we don't have  
> discussions, we'd not have a problem.

I can't speak for others, but I know I have previously been swamped  
at work.  I believe I can certainly review and help sign off on a .15  
release.  What exactly is the quorom we require?

Paul

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