FAQ
Colour can grab your attention. Sometimes you don't want your attention
grabbed. A build log is quite often in my opinion a bad place to grab your
attention. That failure at the end will grab my attention just fine.

There are times when I might like a colourised log... But more often I
prefer to be able to just change the logging levels, or use the terminal's
find feature
On Friday, 7 December 2012, Gary Gregory wrote:

Do you still watch TV in black and white? ;)


On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jesse McConnell
<jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com <javascript:;>>wrote:
I sure hope colored logging is off by default, I hate it :)

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com



On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
I am -1 on coloured logger in 3.1.0 though given the number of commits
to
core coming from me I am fine to state this is not a veto rather a very
strong preference.

I am fine with proofing the coloured logger changes before releasing 3.1.0
to ensure that we have logging right but in my view user visible
changes
make API changes more solid so I am less keen to couple them.

The logging changes are big enough for a separate release. I think
users
will thank us for being cautious before putting coloured logging on top

My €0.02

- Stephen
On Friday, 7 December 2012, Robert Scholte wrote:

It's not about rush, it is about touching the Logging Framework while
for
the majority of the end-users it won't make that much of a
difference.
I'm thinking what would make it interesting for me as an end-user to
use
this next release (apart from the bugfixes). We could already log and
control the logging-level. Now colors would make it more interesting, even
if we could provide it as an extension (not part of core), as long as
it
works.
Sure, for the specialists these changes offer new opportunities, but
that's a small group.

Robert

Op Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:18:50 +0100 schreef Jason van Zyl <
jason@tesla.io
:


On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Robert Scholte <rfscholte@apache.org> wrote:
If 3.1.0 is going to be the "New Logger"-release, I'd prefer to
include
the colored logger as well.


I'm not putting it in the release because I'm not, without discussion

1) Putting 3 logging implementations into the distribution

or

2) Putting an immature logging implementation as the default

Not something to be taken lightly and it's been 11 months at this
point
so
what's the rush?

That would make it more complete. Also, if coloring would require
extra
adjustments to the logging framework then now is the time. (it seems
to
work out of the box, but we have to be sure.)


Robert


Op Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:04:13 +0100 schreef Benson Margulies <
bimargulies@gmail.com>:

As I see it, the vote bogged down because Kristian found problems,
and
I haven't seen clear evidence that those problems are sorted out. I'd
be happy to vote +1 with respect to all the design questions for the
release 'as is'.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
wrote:
good idea, Benson.

Btw, this VOTE did not get enough +1 in more than a week. And this is
not
because not enough people took care if you look at the plenty of
comments
in the thread.

1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce
a
new
plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com <javascript:;> | ggregory@apache.org<javascript:;>
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase