RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Maybe, but now we have 3 +1's. :-) Ralph -Original Message- From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager On 10.05.2004 22:18, Ralph Goers wrote: > Thanks. So we need at least one more +1 for this. Anybody? Begging Marketing ;-) Joerg
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Il giorno 10/mag/04, alle 22:18, Ralph Goers ha scritto: Thanks. So we need at least one more +1 for this. Anybody? +1 -- Ugo Cei - http://beblogging.com/
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
On 10.05.2004 22:18, Ralph Goers wrote: Thanks. So we need at least one more +1 for this. Anybody? Begging Marketing ;-) Joerg
RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Thanks. So we need at least one more +1 for this. Anybody? Ralph -Original Message- From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager +1 Just replace my solution. Carsten > -Original Message- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:09 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager > > Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not > with the version Carsten checked in last week. I'd > appreciate a vote to have this patch applied. > > Ralph > > -Original Message- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: LogKitLoggerManager > > On 09.05.2004 19:25, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > I've submitted patch 28860. I realize this is after the > code freeze, > > but > I'd > > prefer to see this patch instead of the current code. If 2.1.5 goes > > out > with > > the current code we would have to maintain the current behavior of > > logger-type. > > I guess it's completely backwards compatible (same default > behaviour and so on). Then it can go in, but we must vote > about it. It's best if you start the vote yourself. But IMO > we should not wait 72 h for that vote as we would have only > Thursday to test it. 36 h are enough for this case IMO. > > Joerg >
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
On 10.05.2004 21:24, Joerg Heinicke wrote: Argh, I haven't looked at the patch. If it really does change the Cocoon core class and not just only the servlet than -1 for now. We can intregrate it right after the release. No, sorry, this information was wrong. I also know why. I mixed it with the RequestListener patch. Joerg
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
On 10.05.2004 21:19, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: Argh, I haven't looked at the patch. If it really does change the Cocoon core class and not just only the servlet than -1 for now. We can intregrate it right after the release. No, sorry, this information was wrong. It touches only the servlet: Index: CocoonServlet.java === RCS file: /home/cvspublic/cocoon-2.1/src/java/org/apache/cocoon/servlet/CocoonServlet.java,v Joerg
RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Argh, I haven't looked at the patch. If it really does change the Cocoon core class and not just only the servlet than -1 for now. We can intregrate it right after the release. Carsten > -Original Message- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 8:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager > > On 10.05.2004 16:42, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > Thanks Joerg, > > > > Maybe I should have marked this as QVOTE since you are the only one > > who has replied? > > A qvote here means more or less "If no one objects I will > commit". IMO during the code freeze this is not applicable. > Also your patch goes into the core, the Cocoon class itself. > If there is no common interest we will better leave it out > for the release. For a successful vote you need at least 3 > binding +1 and no veto. So where are the interests? > > Joerg >
RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
+1 Just replace my solution. Carsten > -Original Message- > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:09 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager > > Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not > with the version Carsten checked in last week. I'd > appreciate a vote to have this patch applied. > > Ralph > > -Original Message- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: LogKitLoggerManager > > On 09.05.2004 19:25, Ralph Goers wrote: > > > I've submitted patch 28860. I realize this is after the > code freeze, > > but > I'd > > prefer to see this patch instead of the current code. If 2.1.5 goes > > out > with > > the current code we would have to maintain the current behavior of > > logger-type. > > I guess it's completely backwards compatible (same default > behaviour and so on). Then it can go in, but we must vote > about it. It's best if you start the vote yourself. But IMO > we should not wait 72 h for that vote as we would have only > Thursday to test it. 36 h are enough for this case IMO. > > Joerg >
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
On 10.05.2004 16:42, Ralph Goers wrote: Thanks Joerg, Maybe I should have marked this as QVOTE since you are the only one who has replied? A qvote here means more or less "If no one objects I will commit". IMO during the code freeze this is not applicable. Also your patch goes into the core, the Cocoon class itself. If there is no common interest we will better leave it out for the release. For a successful vote you need at least 3 binding +1 and no veto. So where are the interests? Joerg
RE: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Thanks Joerg, Maybe I should have marked this as QVOTE since you are the only one who has replied? Ralph -Original Message- From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager On 09.05.2004 23:08, Ralph Goers wrote: > Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not with the version > Carsten checked in last week. I'd appreciate a vote to have this patch > applied. Ok, then +1 from my side. Joerg
Re: [VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
On 09.05.2004 23:08, Ralph Goers wrote: Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not with the version Carsten checked in last week. I'd appreciate a vote to have this patch applied. Ok, then +1 from my side. Joerg
[VOTE] RE: LogKitLoggerManager
Yes, this change is backward compatible with 2.1.4, but not with the version Carsten checked in last week. I'd appreciate a vote to have this patch applied. Ralph -Original Message- From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LogKitLoggerManager On 09.05.2004 19:25, Ralph Goers wrote: > I've submitted patch 28860. I realize this is after the code freeze, but I'd > prefer to see this patch instead of the current code. If 2.1.5 goes out with > the current code we would have to maintain the current behavior of > logger-type. I guess it's completely backwards compatible (same default behaviour and so on). Then it can go in, but we must vote about it. It's best if you start the vote yourself. But IMO we should not wait 72 h for that vote as we would have only Thursday to test it. 36 h are enough for this case IMO. Joerg
