https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45753
--- Comment #4 from Chad LaVigne 2011-09-30 18:40:29
UTC ---
I opened this issue quite a while ago and never received feedback after making
the changes initially requested. I've found this filter useful on quite a few
projects and each tim
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release at
> some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
> log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
> standalone and DMG buil
I would need to make a new release of Chainsaw after the log4j release at
some point, assuming I needed other things from the updated version of
log4j, but right now Chainsaw depends on 1.2.16 and bundles it in the
standalone and DMG builds...so I think I'm ok.. (?)
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j is
> released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will still
> work.
But you need to make a new release of chainsaw together with the new
release of l
I'm leaning toward keeping them in the same package location - when log4j is
released, I can remove the classes from Chainsaw and everything will still
work.
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy
> wrote:
> > I need to u
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers in
> 1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
>
> Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in
> Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j releas
I need to use some of the classes that were copied to core from receivers in
1165491 (rewriteappender, utillogginglevel)...
Will there be a log4j release soon or should I duplicate these classes in
Chainsaw? I don't want a log4j release to hold up a Chainsaw release.
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011
Definitely!
Anything to simplify things and get this out the door!
Thanks for all your help Christian,
Scott
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy
> wrote:
> > ok, moving ahead with removal then
>
> Thanks, and have fun - re
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> ok, moving ahead with removal then
Thanks, and have fun - removing old stuff makes me always feel good,
hope it is the same feeling for you :-)
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2
ok, moving ahead with removal then
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy
> wrote:
> > ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
> > chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
> ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
> chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project then?
If you speak of the parent for Companions: yes.
I think we can remove the whole Companions tree to
ok, I'll nuke component and receivers and pull the useful bits in to
chainsaw...does that mean we should remove the parent maven project then?
Scott
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Forget the packaging renaming bit. No need to make Chainsaw an OSGi package
> and no need to
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project logging-log4j-receivers has an issue affecting its community
integration.
13 matches
Mail list logo
