2014-09-24 12:29 GMT+04:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > On 24/09/2014 08:59, kkoli...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: kkolinko >> Date: Wed Sep 24 07:59:57 2014 >> New Revision: 1627247 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1627247 >> Log: >> Revert r1623471 + r1623804. >> This was the fix for https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56401 >> Log server information when Tomcat starts. >> >> Reason: It is wrong to log this information in constructor of Catalina >> class, as I noted in Bugzilla. >> There have to be a better solution. I think it is better to revert for now >> to avoid delaying tagging of Tomcat 8.0.13. > > This is absolutely not the way an objection to a commit should be handled. > > If you object to a commit then you need to veto that commit, providing > valid technical reasons for doing so. > > In most cases a discussion will then follow on the dev list. > > If the veto is considered valid by the community then the original > committer is expected to revert it. > > If the original committer doesn't revert it after a suitable period then > someone else can revert it but that should be the exception rather than > the rule and in all cases it should be preceded by an e-mail to the dev > list *before* the commit is reverted.
1. There is both yours and mine code reverted here. 2. The concern was raised 15 days ago, http://markmail.org/message/cy2z3drad7jlru37 3. This is a rather visible feature. If you intend to tag 8.0.13 in the next 0-12 hours, I do not have enough time to test it or to improve it by myself. Possible ways to go: either a) Change the place where logInfo() method is called from. or b) Move implementation to a separate component (Listener, e.g. TomcatVersionDisplayListener or better name) and explicitly configure it in default server.xml. Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
