Do you still watch TV in black and white? ;)
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com>wrote: > I sure hope colored logging is off by default, I hate it :) > > -- > jesse mcconnell > jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am -1 on coloured logger in 3.1.0 though given the number of commits to > > core coming from me I am fine to state this is not a veto rather a very > > strong preference. > > > > I am fine with proofing the coloured logger changes before releasing > 3.1.0 > > to ensure that we have logging right but in my view user visible changes > > make API changes more solid so I am less keen to couple them. > > > > The logging changes are big enough for a separate release. I think users > > will thank us for being cautious before putting coloured logging on top > > > > My €0.02 > > > > - Stephen > > > > On Friday, 7 December 2012, Robert Scholte wrote: > > > > > It's not about rush, it is about touching the Logging Framework while > for > > > the majority of the end-users it won't make that much of a difference. > > > I'm thinking what would make it interesting for me as an end-user to > use > > > this next release (apart from the bugfixes). We could already log and > > > control the logging-level. Now colors would make it more interesting, > > even > > > if we could provide it as an extension (not part of core), as long as > it > > > works. > > > Sure, for the specialists these changes offer new opportunities, but > > > that's a small group. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > Op Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:18:50 +0100 schreef Jason van Zyl < > ja...@tesla.io > > >: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > If 3.1.0 is going to be the "New Logger"-release, I'd prefer to > include > > > the colored logger as well. > > > > > > > > > I'm not putting it in the release because I'm not, without discussion > > > > > > 1) Putting 3 logging implementations into the distribution > > > > > > or > > > > > > 2) Putting an immature logging implementation as the default > > > > > > Not something to be taken lightly and it's been 11 months at this point > > so > > > what's the rush? > > > > > > That would make it more complete. Also, if coloring would require > extra > > > adjustments to the logging framework then now is the time. (it seems to > > > work out of the box, but we have to be sure.) > > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > Op Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:04:13 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies < > > > bimargul...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > As I see it, the vote bogged down because Kristian found problems, and > > > I haven't seen clear evidence that those problems are sorted out. I'd > > > be happy to vote +1 with respect to all the design questions for the > > > release 'as is'. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > > > > > > good idea, Benson. > > > > > > Btw, this VOTE did not get enough +1 in more than a week. And this is > not > > > because not enough people took care if you look at the plenty of > comments > > > in the thread. > > > > > > 1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce a > > new > > > plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem > > with > > > that? > > > > > > Are there other proposals which might help increasing backward > > > compatibility? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.) what about the coloured logger with log4j2? I tried it locally and > it > > > worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) > > > > > > > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 2:28 PM > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > > > > > Could we please find an appropriate subject line for this debate, > > > unless you all are really discussing this design question as part of > > > the (still?) outstanding vote on 3.1.0? > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Another way of looking at this is whether this kind of behavior change > in > > > appropriate for a minor release, instead of a major release. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Daniel, please think through these old project scenarios. Those old > > > projects did ship their own slf4j impl + config and parsed their own > > > > > > logs > > > > > > and extracted information. They will now just fall on their knees > > > > > > because > > > > > > the logs are no longer available for them. Instead they will be > > > > > > somewhere > > > > > > in the maven logs which could be anywhere from a plugin point of view. > > > > > > > > > This is not fixed, this is broken imo. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > > strub > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> > > > > To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> > > > > Cc: > > > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:49 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven > > > > > > > > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
