+1 Just replace my solution.
Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:09 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager > > Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not > with the version Carsten checked in last week. I'd > appreciate a vote to have this patch applied. > > Ralph > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: LogKitLoggerManager > > On 09.05.2004 19:25, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > I've submitted patch 28860. I realize this is after the > code freeze, > > but > I'd > > prefer to see this patch instead of the current code. If 2.1.5 goes > > out > with > > the current code we would have to maintain the current behavior of > > logger-type. > > I guess it's completely backwards compatible (same default > behaviour and so on). Then it can go in, but we must vote > about it. It's best if you start the vote yourself. But IMO > we should not wait 72 h for that vote as we would have only > Thursday to test it. 36 h are enough for this case IMO. > > Joerg >
