commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:41:07 GMT
I will also defend Peter's right to say his piece.  I do not agree with
him that Commons is 'broken', but I do want to hear what he say to say,
and I will consider and vote on any proposal he makes to change it.  I
would assume that he, just like me, is trying to look out for the best
interests of the Commons.  He just has a different POV.  This is a
*good* thing.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de] 
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:53 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> 
> 
> Answer inline:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Downey [mailto:steve.downey@netfolio.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:41 PM
> > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> > 
> > 
> > OK, I'm not a committer, merely a client,
> 
> I was not a committer until yesterday. I still do not feel the 
> personality change thing. Maybe we just remain the same persons.
> 
> Anyway, just defend what you believe in. The people here use to 
> listen... even when they do not agree.
> 
> 
> > but it seems to me that all Peter proved is that he can act
> > childishly. 
> 
> Believe me, there is a lot of people here that can do that too. 
> Some even do it much better than Peter. But they still tend to 
> do good stuff most of the time.
> 
> 
> > His position is that he doesn't trust the other committers.
> 
> Do you trust everybody with the committer badge with your code, 
> money, car keys and wife???
> 
> 
> > He doesn't want his code subject to someone else's criticism.
> 
> Than he should avoid producing so much code for Ant and Avalon, 
> where such criticism happens all the time.
> 
> 
> > Considering the interdependencies of the commons code, that 
> strikes me 
> > as a bad idea. For example, suppose someone made a change 
> to beanutils 
> > that was disastrous
> > for digester. Peter's position is that a committer who happens 
> > to be working on digester couldn't -1 the change to beanutils.
> 
> If there is a bad change to Velocity that breaks Turbine, the 
> Turbiners that are not Velocity committers also can not veto it. 
> Same with Cocoon that uses Avalon, with all the projects that 
> use Log4J, and so on and so on.
> 
> But a project that gets his code broken by an Open Source 
> component always has many options:
>  - Find the change a great idea and just silently fix things;
>  - Sticking to the previous version;
>  - Forking the component because they want to evolve it and are
>    fed up with the component makers;
>  - Just adopting another similar component with nicer authors.
> 
> The fact is that if you keep breaking things for the users of 
> your component you end up having none and everybody here knows 
> that. That is the fact that keeps the component authors from 
> messing up too much too fast.
> 
> However, if you let just any guy to mess with things they do 
> not really understand and changing things that are convenient 
> to them but are not that good for other users they do not know 
> about... chaos reigns supreme.
> 
> So, I agree with Peter: the commons will get too big and has a 
> too loose structure to control things like this (which is still 
> not the case with Avalon).
> 
> I am not sure about how strictly one should regulate that, but 
> maybe it is necessary.
> 
> 
> > I'll admit that it's hypothetical and unlikely, but until
> > Peter -1'd the release of logging (which is a majority vote, 
> > fortunately), so was Peter's case of a rogue vetoer.
>  
> Peter posted that -1 just to defend this POV on the vote 
> rules and not to avoid the release of logging. If you read 
> that post with some attention you will see that.
> 
> 
> Have fun,
> Paulo Gaspar
> 
>  
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paulo Gaspar [mailto:paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:42 AM
> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: RE: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Times change. The commons experience is maturing and you 
> made a good 
> > > point about that issue with that -1 on the logging.
> > > =;o)
> > > 
> > > Just propose it again man.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Have fun,
> > > Paulo
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:05 PM
> > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 05:06, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > > > > What needs to be changed Peter?
> > > > 
> > > > People who dont contribute to a component dont get voting
> > > rights over a
> > > > component.
> > > > 
> > > > > Explicitly state it in a
> > > > > proposal/vote/patch and let's do it.
> > > > 
> > > > I have proposed it several times before. If you go back to the
> > > > original vote 
> > > > for commons you will see that I only started waving the Avalon 
> > > > duplication 
> > > > flag after I was ignored on this issue for the second 
> time. I had 
> > > > hoped Jon 
> > > > would have picked up on it and we could have forced the 
> proposal 
> > > > to include 
> > > > this requirement but it didn't happen this way.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > > Pete
> > > > 
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The difference between genius, and stupidity? Genius has limits
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 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>
> > > 
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>This
electronic mail
> > transmission
> > may contain confidential information and is intended only for the 
> > person(s)
> > named.  Any use, copying or disclosure by any other person 
> is strictly
> > prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, 
> > please notify
> > the sender via e-mail. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > 
> > --
> > 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>
> 
> 

--
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