commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Remy Maucherat" <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:28:34 GMT
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
> > Maybe at that time we *didn't* want to work together for some very
> > reasons. After all, the original commons proposal, which I was part of,
> > was -1ed only by Peter, because we apparently had diverging opinions
> > how shared code should be governed.
> > Given the number of components in the commons, I think it has been quite
> > successful with its goals, and it did abide by its basic principles
> > (openness, bazaar style repository, extremely few external dependencies,
> > imposed coding style, etc etc).
> Hmmm.   Remy, I have to say this sounds quite petty.

It is not petty at all.
All the points are mentioned are about having no BigGuy controlling what
code I am supposed to be sharing.

> > I'm also greatly disturbed by the timing and the ferocity of your
> > complaints. AFAIK, nobody here did invent the facade pattern or the
> > interface (or whatever you choose to call it). It seems Rodney came up
> > something similar to LogKit by accident.
> Timing maybe, ferocity?  If you think that is ferocity, then you haven't
> had any kind of debate yet.

Well, I don't know. I've seen you once in a while on this list, the whole
development process was open, the commit messages went by. The second a
release proposal comes, a veto flies, and its justification is "I invented
facaded logging APIs" (please allow me to paraphrase a bit).

> The "I 'tried' and gave up" attitude is bad.

Big difference here. I don't see why I should have to convince anyone to be
able to share my code.
Commons is just that. A place to share code, without too much political
bagage hassle (unlike, for example, being a top-level project).

> > Now, if all you want is some credit for "being there", then so be it,
> > have it :) You just could have asked it a lot sooner and in a lot nicer
> Sooner, no.

Whatever ...

> Nicer way, possibly.

No kidding ;-)

> Well, perhaps we can both get over ourselves and just move on.  I'm
> to burry the hatchet if you are.  However, I *don't* like when projects
> can work together disassociate because of petty reasons.  If there are
> technical reasons, I can appreciate it.

The community reason is more than enough for me. I thought the biggest
strenght of Jakarta was that it was a community, BTW. Technical stuff always
come second in all the charters I've seen, and everything tends to encourage
community building. So thanks, but I'll keep my community friendly "petty"
stuff :)

If we both want to move forward, I think now that you got your quote, you
should withdraw your -1.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message