Thanks, Ceki. Ari Ceki Gülcü wrote:
On 06/09/2010 11:31 AM, Ari Meyer wrote:
Thanks Ralph -- good to see Ceki's response to the same question, albeit 2 yrs earlier. Makes me think I should have voiced my justifications for a 1.0 label years ago, as doubtless many people are likewise waiting for 1.0 to try out logback, but get by with log4j and don't press the issue. Will wait to hear me directly from Ceki on this. Thanks also for pointing out the issues lists.
There is no denying that people feel more comfortable with a 1.0 release than a 0.9 release. By the same token, people are more forgiving with breaking changes in a 0.9 release than in a 1.0 release. The extra wiggle room had my preference in the past.
On this note, here's something I dug up from over 3 yrs ago, including the "1.0 release" question: http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/08/logback. Again this brings me back to my related question: /Are there some must-have features that have yet to be implemented?/
There are no must-have features missing but I still have a few significant improvements I'd like to make before going 1.0.
Best, Ari
_______________________________________________ Logback-user mailing list Logback-user@qos.ch http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/logback-user