--- Elias Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel a bit frustrated because I've been bitten in the ass a few > times encountering this "contrived" problem and I haven't been > taken very seriously pointing this out. As I have tried to explain, > this is something that has happened before on servers at this > company, and it's something we'd like to have fixed.
Last time I checked log4j was open source.
Last time I checked, it seemed he realized this, so I'm not sure why you see the need to point this out.
Fix your version and be done with it. The official distribution will be "fixed" when an appropriate "fix" is determined. What is hard to understand about that?
He's taken the time to look at the source and provided the project with patches that he finds reasonable and claims are backward compatible. He's also trying to argue his case about why they should be included in the Log4j distribution. Anyone working with open source understands that they could fork the code and add whatever they want without it being accepted by the project. There is an obvious reason to avoid this, however; extra maintenance and having to keep the fork synchronized with continuing changes.
Bottom line: please don't discourage people who are actively contributing, especially when you are making an irrelevant point obvious to anyone on this list.
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
