Yes, sorry for the extra work, but please revert the commit.
On Friday, January 24, 2014, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Gary, although Remko hasn’t said it I think he is implying that he is > vetoing the code commit. Unfortunately, unless you can convince Remko > otherwise you are going to have to revert the commit. > > Remko, if that isn’t your intention then please say so as it will save > Gary a bunch of work. > > Ralph > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To clarify my position on the proposed DIAG, VERBOSE, NOTICE log levels: I > don't think these levels should be added to the Log4J API. > Here is my thinking: > > 1. The current five levels are a de facto. standard. (For example, they > match the SLF4J levels.) They are sufficient for the vast majority of log4j > users. We should be hesitant to change this. My position would be to not > change this unless we all think this is a really good idea. (The bar should > be high for this change.) > 2. From a practical point of view, making. levels an Extensible Enum > provides a more powerful alternative solution, making the proposed levels > unnecessary. > 3. From an engineering/aestical POV, I feel the proposed levels are > arbitrary and the Extensible Enum solution is more elegant. > 4. The proposed levels are not only unnecessary, I think they are > actually detrimental (for lack of a better word. I mean, not having them > would be better). > The discussion in the "Web Issues, Logging Levels, and GA" thread shows > how much opinions can differ about naming, strength, and intended usage, > *even in our small group*. How can we predict what levels other users may > want? The proposed levels can easily confuse users or get in the way of > users wanting to use these names at different strengths or with a different > intended usage. > > The fact that changes for these levels have already been committed is IMHO > not an argument in its favor. On the contrary, I was surprised at the > timing of this commit: it was clear that many people were opposed to this > approach. To me it was also clear that we had started exploring extensible > enums as a mechanism that would allow us to *avoid* adding pre-defined > levels. > > To repeat my position: I don't think these levels should be added to the > Log4J API. > > Remko > > On Friday, January 24, 2014, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm fine with Nick's proposal to have two separate votes. > Remko > > On Friday, January 24, 2014, Nick Williams <nicho...@nicholaswilliams.net> > wrote: > > There has obviously been some serious discussion about these topics. We're > not going to come to a total agreement on this. I propose: > > - We have a committers-only vote in the "Enums and Custom Levels" thread > on whether to make Level an extensible enum. > - AFTER having that vote, we have a committers-only vote in this thread on > whether to add these three levels. > - We only roll back this revision AFTER the second vote is complete and IF > the vote rejects the new levels. > > Nick > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com>wrote: > > W > >
