Hi, I suggest you read the rest of the threads (not just the original message you quoted) before ranting further ;)
Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Endre St�lsvik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:33 AM > To: Log4J Developers List > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Release of log4j version 1.2.10 > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Ceki G�lc� wrote: > > | > | Log4j developers are proud to announce the availability of log4j > | version 1.2.10. This version adds native support for SLF4J, along with > | a minor bug fix. The Simple Logging Facade for Java or (SLF4J) is > | intended to serve as a simple facade for various logging APIs allowing > | to the end-user to plug in the desired implementation at deployment > | time. For more details about SLF4J, see > | > | http://www.slf4j.org > | > | You can download log4j version 1.2.10 at > | > | http://logging.apache.org/site/binindex.html > > Fantastic. > > So the trace-level does NOT get in the 1.2 branch, where NO NEW > DEVELOPMENT should enter, but this TOTALLY new SLF4j thing, ramled > together in very short time, (which I do know is "UGLI MkII") gets _thrown > in_ and released even w/o any vote, by the totalitarian ruler of log4j??? > > What the .... is happening, really? > > <bad rant>Someone just gotta fork this piece of code now, and get some > actual new releases with features that people actually seek.</bad rant> > > Regards, > Endre. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
