On Aug 23, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:
Looks good -
A few things:
1. helpers/Constants.java is in both extras & component. I looked
in helpers for other dups, but didn't see any - not sure if we have
other dups..
Without Constants in extras, TimestampEqualsRule and
Timest
st
Subject: RE: Bug list survey
Looks good -
A few things:
1. helpers/Constants.java is in both extras & component. I looked
in helpers for other dups, but didn't see any - not sure if we have
other dups..
2. When I try to use UDPReceiver (with XMLDecoder), it looks like
it's
PROTECTED]
www.comotivsystems.com
-Original Message-
From: Scott Deboy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/22/2007 10:19 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: RE: Bug list survey
Looks good -
A few things:
1. helpers/Constants.java is in both extras & component. I looked in help
Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/22/2007 8:48 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Subject: Bug list survey
I don't know what possessed me, but I think I've reviewed all the
open log4j bugs today and fixed several of them. I didn't see any of
the other ones that seemed re
I don't know what possessed me, but I think I've reviewed all the
open log4j bugs today and fixed several of them. I didn't see any
of the other ones that seemed ready for log4j 1.2.15. The big
clusters of bugs seemed to be:
Unless someone wants to lobby for a particular bug, I think I'
I don't know what possessed me, but I think I've reviewed all the
open log4j bugs today and fixed several of them. I didn't see any of
the other ones that seemed ready for log4j 1.2.15. The big clusters
of bugs seemed to be:
1) Tomcat shutdown/restart breaking what were intended to be
--- Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you really talking about completely trivial patches? Blindly
> applying patches can lead to unmaintainable code which no body
> understands. (I'd of course like to avoid that...)
>
> If you are talking about totally trivial patches, then a list of su
quot; now would be useful.
Thanks,
Paul Smith
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 6:22 AM
> To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug List
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I think this would definitel
ve list on what should be "applyable" now would be useful.
Thanks,
Paul Smith
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 6:22 AM
> To: Log4J Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug List
>
Hi Michael,
I think this would definitely be valuable. Please do it so we can cut down on
the number of outstanding bug reports.
thanks,
Jake
Quoting Michael Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've noticed that several of the "Minor" bugs in the bug database for
> log4j have patches included inline
I've noticed that several of the "Minor" bugs in the bug database for
log4j have patches included inline or as attachments. Some of them are
over a year old and the patches don't look like they have been applied
yet. I've weeded out a few duplicate bug reports and included a few
patches myself.
Wo
11 matches
Mail list logo