commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:22:28 GMT
On 2/1/02 5:04 PM, "costinm@covalent.net" <costinm@covalent.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
>> On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, "Scott Sanders" <ssanders@nextance.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> How do you enforce this?  How do you handle this in the Avalon world?  I
>>> consider (only just recently, BTW), that a committer in Commons is a
>>> committer to the entire commons codebase, including the sandbox.
>> 
>> And that's the problem that I think peter is pointing out - that people can
>> have binding votes on projects that they have nothing to do with...
> 
> If he votes, that means it has somethig to do with the component.

Not at all.  He voted to make a point.  He had nothing to do with that
codebase (except the influence from logkit)

> 
> Peter does have a lot of experience in logging - so his vote and feedback
> is as valid as any other developer that participates in the common-logger
> development. It is in fact great if Peter sends his -1 and arguments on
> the common-logger, as this provides feedback and is a valuable contribution in
> itself.
> 
> It would be far worse if Peter would not be able to vote.
> 
> So the model works very well.

Huh? He was making a point - he first stated some of his issues, and then
someone told him that because he wasn't involved in the component, his
'vote' didn't matter.
 
He then added himself to a file, and then his vote was as valid as anyones.

I have little experience in logging. I could have added myself to the file,
and voted too, and my vote would count as much as peter's.

> 
>> One of the motivations for commons was a place for small*, discrete
>> components to be able to be packaged and presented for reuse by both Jakarta
>> projects and developers at large.
> 
> I think the main motivation was to promote sharing and cooperation.
> Community is more important than code - and if Peter added himself to the
> list of commons-logger contributors, than that's a good step :-)

If he was serious, it would be a great step.  I donĀ¹t believe he was :)

And I'm not sure if that was the 'main motivation'.  I think we all had our
motivations, and all were slightly different, all centered around making a
place to bring some of the great, hidden codebases in jakarta out for all,
and to provide a 'neutral ground' where projects could work together on
things.

> 
> The reverse doesn't seem to work that well - I'm not sure how many
> commons contributors are going to send enough patches to logkit to
> become commiters there, and then get the right to vote. And it seems
> people prefer to participate and use projects where they are not just
> users, but can be commiters and express opinions and vote if they
> need to.

Sure.  Agreed.

> 
> 
>> I too believed then and still believe now that we would be better served
>> with the conventional Apache/Jakarta committer model in Commons, where each
>> component is a well defined group of interested people, a part of the larger
>> community as well, of course.
> 
> I believe we would be better served with the commons model in
> apache/jakarta.


Cool - Do you want to be nominated for PMC on that platform?  This is a
serious offer...

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                                     geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
Java : the speed of Smalltalk with the simple elegance of C++... 


--
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