Hi all,
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
> Since I would like to release `3.0.0-beta3` some time soon and we did
> not reach a larger consensus, I propose to:
>
> - Remove **all** the bridges from `3.0.0-beta3`, with the exception of
> `Log4jBridgeHandler`, which is not an AP
Another batch of repositories? -1 and you must be joking. We really are going
off the map here IMO :(
Releasing different jars from one repo is the same as releasing jars from one
SSD: A repo is just a folder with subfolders you can organize as you best see
fit. So why have 10 repos? Or how eve
I like the idea of revisiting our jar names Volkan. Thank you for bringing this
up. I _always_ have to lookup how to layer jars whenever I have to deal with a
complex stack that usually involves Log4j, JUL, and Slf4j.
"bullet-proof self-explanatory names": Yes, please!
I like using the "-api" p
Hi Gary,
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 12:51, Gary D. Gregory wrote:
> Releasing different jars from one repo is the same as releasing jars from one
> SSD: A repo is just a folder with subfolders you can organize as you best see
> fit. So why have 10 repos? Or how ever many we have now splintered Log4
Hi Gary,
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 13:11, Gary D. Gregory wrote:
> - `jul-to-log4j-core`: I understand that name as: The JUL API is implemented
> in terms of Log4j's own impl guts. The difference with `jul-to-log4j-api` is
> that we directly implement JUL? Without going though log4j-api? If that's
