+1 from me On Friday, 7 December 2012, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> I sure hope colored logging is off by default, I hate it :) > > -- > jesse mcconnell > jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > > > 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 <
