There were two typos in my previous message. Here is the corrected version:
We have not reached a decision about whether only one or both of log4cplus and log4cxx should join. The question is still open. I suspect it will mostly depend on the reaction of the of the log4cplus and log4cxx communities.
At 06:20 PM 1/5/2004 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Berin,
We have not a decision about whether only one or both of log4cplus and log4cxx should join. The question is still open. I suspect it will be mostly depend on the reaction of the of the log4cplus and log4cxx communities.
Regards,
At 10:56 AM 12/25/2003 +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:I notice that the list marks both log4cplus and log4cxx as being in incubation. Are both versions getting incorporated into logging.apache.org, and are they formally in incubation yet?
I haven't seen them come in to incubation? Mind you - if the logging PMC has voted to accept them, then it's just a formality to get them in.
Merry Christmas :>.
Cheers, Berin
-- Ceki G�lc�
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
-- Ceki G�lc�
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
