commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Husted <hus...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:04:49 GMT
My only complaint is that we need to respect everyone's bandwidth. Every
twiddly message here goes out to a great many people, most of whom have
work to do. If after a brief discussion someone wants to bring an actual
proposal to the table, I hope they will do so. But these endless threads
have to stop, or IMHO, people will start voting with their feet. I'm in
favor of alternate POVs. I'm not in favor of continually expressing them
in a chatroom-format ad-naseum.

-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Java Web Development with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/


Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> 
> > Well it isn't actually, but I've been told to shut up, so I'll leave it
> > here.
> 
> Unlike Ted, I think you should try to get your point trough.
> 
> If you are sure that everybody else understood your POV and everybody
> is against, THEN it is the time to quit. If you think you were still
> not understood, then you should try to get trough.
> 
> I would not have changed my mind if it was not for Costin arguments.
> That only happened because Costin did not stay quiet.
> 
> Have fun,
> Paulo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@optonline.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:40 PM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> >
> >
> > On 2/4/02 6:43 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Inline...
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geirm@optonline.net]
> > >> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:28 AM
> > >>
> > >> We have the ability to affect change on this thing I believe
> > is a problem.
> > >> (One answer is "It's not a problem" I suppose...)
> > >>
> > >> The only answers I hear are "Things are fine" or "Tomorrow..."
> > or "That's
> > >> prevented by the rules".
> > >
> > > And IT IS prevented by the rules. A lot of people would veto the kind
> > > of nastiness you are afraid of and the mess would be rolled back.
> >
> > Well it isn't actually, but I've been told to shut up, so I'll leave it
> > here.
> >
> > >
> > >> I know it's hypothetical, and has been ruled to be a waste of
> > >> bandwidth, but
> > >> what about the "log4j crew" vs "logkit crew" in the the
> > "everyone gets to
> > >> vote irrespective of contribution" model?
> > >
> > > AFAIK only some of us are proposing such model to be applied to the
> > > whole Jakarta (and I am NOT one of them).
> > >
> > > Besides, a lot of people (including me) would prefer to have BOTH
> > > LogKit and Log4J and veto such mess.
> >
> > I want both too.
> >
> > > I also think that both logging teams, although not always very wise,
> > > are still much wiser than that.
> > >
> >
> > I know. I have high regard for Ceki and Peter.  That's why its
> > hypothetical.
> >
> > geir
> >
> > --
> > Geir Magnusson Jr.                       geirm@optonline.net
> > System and Software Consulting
> > You're going to end up getting pissed at your software
> > anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message