Hi, First of all: Welcome to OPS4J. Thanks for looking into it. You happen to come in at rough times as we are just switching infrastructure systems. But by adding the Issue to the new Jira already it looks like you made your way. Cool + Apologize.
About your issue: Looks good to me, though haven't tested it myself. At OPS4J we usually trust contributors, so you can free to push your changes right into the OPS4J repo. If you did not have karma to push directly before, now you have. Once things (Infrastructure) settles i'm happy to test your changes and so we can cut it with a new release. Thanks again! Toni On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Adam Crain <acr...@greenenergycorp.com>wrote: > As I have not committed in this community before, I would appreciate a > review of these changes: > > https://github.com/jadamcrain/org.ops4j.pax.logging > > <https://github.com/jadamcrain/org.ops4j.pax.logging>They correspond to > this Jira: > > https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXLOGGING-102 > > My hesitation with just merging this change was that I had to widen the > PaxLogger interface with overloads that take the FQCN so that I could tunnel > that info all the way to the log4j implementation. Maybe this is OK, but I > don't like just adding methods to such a central interface without > discussion. > > <https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXLOGGING-102>thanks for your time, > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
