text: Jar upgrades are never easy. I would venture a guess that in Log4j world,
  1.3 is the equvalent of 2.0 in other projects. Especially if you count how
  many 1.2.x releases there where..
  The worst thing that can happen is that the o.a.l.RFA class is grabbed out
  of log4j just to provide the compatiblity. I hate that when I have
  hibernate.jar and commons-lang.jar that eclipse prompts me for which path to
  import from for my NestableException!
  I do think that log4j-user is going to recieve a lot of emails about why
  config files quit working. I would grab a 1.3 and slap it in place of 1.2.8
  without thinking about it if I didn't know how big the 1.3 upgrade was for
  log4j.
  Geir, have you thought about using commons-logging as a wrapper/hider of the
  other logging solutions? That might allow you to not include log4j and
  logkit jars, and give you support of theoretically many logging solutions?
  ERic
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:geir@4quarters.com]
  > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:50 PM
  > To: Ceki Gülcü
  > Cc: log4j-dev@logging.apache.org; gump@jakarta.apache.org
  > Subject: Re: failure notice
  >
  >
  >
  > On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
  >
  > > At 02:58 PM 11/30/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
  > >
  > >> On Nov 30, 2004, at 8:32 AM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
  > >>
  > >>> At 03:39 AM 11/30/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
  > >>>> some lists choose to moderate...
  > >>>
  > >>> Hello Geir,
  > >>>
  > >>> We currently don't but may switch back to moderated list. Sorry
  > >>> about the hassle.
  > >>>
  > >>>> anyway, the interesting thing is the problem I have fixing Velocity
  > >>>> so Gump is happy ...
  > >>>
  > >>> Niclas Hedhman informed us of this problem. There was a conscious
  > >>> choice to remove the old RollingAppender and replace with something
  > >>> better.
  > >>
  > >> That's all well and good, but why not deprecate for a version?
  > >
  > > Because the old RollingAppender has bugs. Consequently, we don't want
  > > to make it available to Mrs. Piggy in the next version of log4j 1.3.
  >
  > Mrs. Piggy?
  >
  > Can you make o.a.l.RFA be an adapter for o.a.l.rolling.RFA?
  >
  > >
  > >> But what gump has done here is given us early warning that if one of
  > >> us doesn't do something, Velocity users [and every other log4j user
  > >> using RollingFileAppender] are *screwed* if they try to upgrade a
  > >> minor version number of log4j, to 1.3.
  > >
  > >> What I want is that existing velocity users can upgrade to log4j 1.3
  > >> w/o hassle.
  > >
  > > Log4j 1.3 is currently in alpha. Ignore 1.3 until it goes RC. When it
  > > goes RC, switch to 1.3. It should be trivial to do so.
  >
  > It is, but requires a code change. For people with code in production,
  > asking to do a code change to upgrade log4j is asking a lot.
  >
  > >
  > >> But forgetting Gump, in general, what do you want me and other users
  > >> to do? have to modify our code to update to 1.3?
  > >
  > > Wait, don't do anything for the time being. Velocity ships with a copy
  > > log4j doesn't it?
  >
  > no, we just tell people that we have a logger that writes to it.
  >
  > > Continue to ship log4j 1.2.9 until you decide to switch to 1.3, for
  > > example when it goes RC. Switching velocity to use log4j 1.3 instead
  > > of 1.2 should be pretty easy to do.
  > >
  > > How does that sound?
  >
  > We don't ship log4j. We support having velocity log to a whole bunch
  > of things, log4j being one of them (and probably the most popular...)
  >
  > geir
  >
  > >
  > >> geir
  > >
  > > --
  > > Ceki Gülcü
  > >
  > > The complete log4j manual:
  > > Professional log4j support:
  > >
  > >
  > --
  > Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
  > geir@gluecode