Ceki, I think a 1.2 branch is a good idea. That way the main branch can accept whatever changes are needed for 1.3, however small or extensive they might be. The pain with that is checking bug fixes into 2 places, but worth it, I think.
Regarding LF5, excellent! Many kudos to Thoughtworks! Have we discussed how we are going to package and ship the client? Does it make sense to include all of it in the current log4j jar? Maybe it should be it's own jar? That way, "server-side" installations of log4j are not bogged down with a bunch of extra code that will never be used in that environment. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 8:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: LogFactor5 donation + CVS branches > > > > Hi, > > The paperwork for the donation of LogFactor5 is now complete and we > are ready to add LogFactor5 source code to our CVS repository. > > Many thanks to Thoughtworks Inc. for their contribution and to Brad > Marlborough for following through with the paperwork. > > I do not think we should ship LF5 with log4j 1.2 (final) > which should become > available within the next few days. At the same time, it > would be a waste to > wait until 1.3 is released in order to include LF5. It is > also quite likely > that we > would need to incorporate bug fixes into log4j 1.2 without > waiting for 1.3 to > come out. Consequently, after 1.2 final is released, I > propose that we create > a 1.2 branch in CVS while continuing to develop for 1.3 on > the main trunk. > Is everyone OK with this? Do you have a better idea? > > -- > Ceki > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
