That's all reasonable. I will take silence from the rest as tacit agreement.
On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jason > > From what I have gathered from these discussions, we have a majority of > people that want to stick with SLF4J Simple for the 3.1.0 release, if > all the quirks are ironed out. Judging by Hervé's recent commits this is > almost done, except for the class loading isolation in MNG-5406. > > I think having the 3.1.0 release sit with SLF4J Simple for 6 months is a > good idea. That will give it more time in the field, and we can fix any > edge cases that might turn up. At the same time it will give us a > necessary breather from discussing logging. > > Having a discussion before selecting some other logging implementation > is a must as I see it. > > As for the licensing "issue", I don't see that as a problem at all. It > is just an extra hoop that we have to jump through, if we choose an EPL > licensed logging implementation. If we in 6 months time have a majority > in favor of an EPL licensed logging, then the vote to add that > dependency will pass. > > Thanks for working on this, and for taking things slow so that everyone > that wants to get involved is given the opportunity to do so. > > > On 2013-01-06 17:31, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> I believe this is sufficient provided that we agree when any one attempts to >> select the logging framework that there is a discussion. >> >> As I see it I have been blocked as the person doing the work from selecting >> the implementation I would like because of a rule against EPL dependencies >> which was created for something not related to this. That said I understand >> why it was originally done. >> >> What I don't want to see if a month from now try someone trying inject >> something that isn't Logback without a discussion because I have a lot to >> say on the matter. So provided there is agreement that if we're choosing >> SLF4J Simple we just leave it there for at least 6 months because the >> discussion will be between Logback and Log4J2 and 1) That's at least how >> long it's going to take for Log4J2 to get to any level of maturity and we >> can see how it's being adopted and 2) I don't really want to talk about >> logging for a while. If we pick SLF4J Simple we stick with it for a while. >> >> I will express my opinion again that I think Logback is the right choice >> right now, but I'm fine with the agreed upon selection by the group to use >> SLF4J Simple provided this isn't going to be contended for the next 6 >> months. If anyone has any intention of changing the implementation before >> then we should just stop and have the discussion now. >> >> I also think the PMC should remove the requirement to vote in the use of EPL >> licensed dependencies, there's nothing wrong with the EPL being used with >> the ASL. >> >> On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:47 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> If SLF4J Simple is now a viable option again, i.e. the problems reported >>> with concurrency and embedding has been sorted out, then that is the >>> obvious choice to me. >>> >>> On 2012-12-24 15:12, Jason van Zyl wrote: >>>> I'm going to push this along and I agree with Stephen insofar as if you >>>> prefer an implementation then there should be a branch to support that >>>> preference. Thus far I have not seen anything aside from Stephen's efforts >>>> which are a PoC so the choice is between SLF4J Simple, Logback and Log4J2. >>>> >>>> If we want to put aside the debate, Ceki has figured out a way for use >>>> SLF4J Simple by resetting the streams and logging level. Which I can try >>>> if we want to go down that path. I didn't have to do any work in SLF4J >>>> myself so I'm fine with this approach. >>>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some code >>>>>> to >>>>>>> make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and >>>>>> committing >>>>>>> it, those branches are dead... as are those choices. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF YOU WANT TO SPONSOR ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES THEN WRITE THE DAMN CODE TO >>>>>>> GET THEM WALKING AGAIN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs >>>>>>> I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating >>>>>> for >>>>>>> log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> ITs. >>>>>> branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this >>>>>> jenkins job >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/core-integration-testing-maven-3-jdk-1.6-log4j2/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will now >>>>> rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up >>>>> from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent >>>>>>> third >>>>>>> party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration tests >>>>>> to >>>>>>> pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either has >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are >>>>>>> needing >>>>>>> to give better proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing against >>>>>>> log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one of the >>>>>>> other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing some >>>>>>> code...) >>>>>> My 0.02 euros. >>>>>> Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue. >>>>>> And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports >>>>>> from folks on the other thread) >>>>>> I read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html (agree >>>>>> benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if >>>>>> runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care. >>>>>> Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good >>>>>> license for our Maven. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I >>>>> have >>>>> not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options >>>>> through >>>>> the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical >>>>> debates. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Jason van Zyl >>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>>> Founder, Apache Maven >>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're >>>> talking about. >>>> >>>> -- John von Neumann >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dennis Lundberg >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track >> of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget >> the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful >> groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a >> clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as >> signs of decline and decay. >> >> -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
