On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ceki Gulcu <c...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
