At 04:26 PM 3/11/2004 +1100, Paul Smith wrote:
> So, what was the verdict?
I can't get into what the verdict is as I can't remember. By the sounds
of things, all us log4j-dev guys are:

a) Barely keeping our heads above water, work-wise
b) Recovering from surgery

Hi Gier,

c) all of the above

[(a) for me anyway]

It's (c) for me. :-)


Should there be a vote in the future, I can say my intention would be to
vote +1 on the concept of adding TRACE.  However I can't comment on any
implementation details that have been discussed so far as I've been too
busy to focus on it (I wouldn't use TRACE, personally).

I think implementation is not the mean issue but rather the question of whether including TRACE or not. I am inclined to vote against it, based on the arguments listed at:

http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Log4JProjectPages/TraceDebate

At the same time, it seems to me that voting on the subject and thus
following through with the democratic decision process carries more
weight than any other technical consideration.

So let's vote each according to our best judgement.

I'll follow up with a vote proposal.

Hope everyone is well.

cheers,

Paul Smith

-- Ceki G�lc�

For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to