commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: sanctioning commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist"
Date Sun, 17 May 2009 17:22:35 GMT
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ceki Gulcu <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> We're not actually ceding control though. I'm assuming the 0.0 or 99.0
>> version will be released through us etc etc. As you're an Apache
>> committer I don't see any reason why that should be an issue. If we
>> need to release a 0.0.0 (or whatever) later to fix an issue in the
>> empty pom, we could.
>
> True. BTW, thank you for rekindling this thread.

I'm a slow reader currently :)

>> In terms of helping sfl4j gain marketshare at commons-logging's loss -
>> more power to slf4j. You don't gain anything long term by
>> protectionism.
>
> I agree. However, you need to have a certain perspective to come to
> that realization.
>
>> Something for the Maven guys to try and solve before that day arrives I
>> guess.
>>
>> Wonder what Phil et al think to making DBCP dependent on SFL4J :)
>>
>> Anyway +1 to the 0.0 approach. I like the 'zero'ness of it to imply
>> that you're getting nothing, as opposed to 99 which feels more like
>> there is something there. As long as it fills your needs, and protects
>> from any LATEST issues it sounds like a win-win.
>
> Very good. I'll start working on this in a 0.0 branch and once done, submit
> for a vote on a release.

I've given you karma for the sandbox. Make a logging branch in there
and it can be voted on for release into proper.

Hen

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


Mime
View raw message