"I simply don’t have time to read long emails that a) don’t ask me how
to solve a specific problem, b) don’t ask for a specific feature to be
implemented, c) don’t ask me how to explain how something works or d)
don’t say “What can I do to help”."
All of what you say basically boils down to the fact that you want to
simply relax and not have to think about hard stuff. It is a hobby
project so to speak (to be assuming again) but there is no reflection in
their. No thinking about WHAT you are doing. You are doing it, but you
don't think about what it is.
b) I can't ask you for a specific feature yet because I have yet to
discover and develop what it needs to be. That's why I am spending my
time with Log4J, to improve it. If I just wanted to use it and nothing
else, well I would not have. It is too flawed for that, from my point of
view (sorry about that).
c) I'm doing that as I go along but I also need to communicate
d) I already know how I can help. You don't have to tell me.
Well, that's about it, for now again, at least.
Op 15-8-2015 om 2:27 schreef Ralph Goers:
Bart, We spent over 2 years asking for feedback during which we had
13 releases prior to the GA release. We changed, many, many things.
While you are free to criticize Log4j 2 it really doesn’t accomplish
much unless you provide concrete detail on what should be changed and
then expend some effort to do that.
Projects in the Apache Software Foundation are run by what is
affectionately called a “do-ocracy” - If you see something broken you
fix it, if there is a feature you want you create it. Creating Jira
issues and posting emails is great but in the end doesn’t accomplish
much if no one does anything about it. Everyone who works on Apache
projects is a volunteer. We do it because we choose to and because we
want to, not because we have to.
The bottom line is that I have a day job that takes more than 40 hours
per week of my time. I have a family that requires my attention. I
want to write code and solve people’s problems when I have the time to
work on Log4j. I simply don’t have time to read long emails that a)
don’t ask me how to solve a specific problem, b) don’t ask for a
specific feature to be implemented, c) don’t ask me how to explain how
something works or d) don’t say “What can I do to help”.
Please don’t take responses to you as people being rude. Please take
them as we are all busy and want to use our time effectively.
Ralph
On Aug 14, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Xen <x...@dds.nl <mailto:x...@dds.nl>> wrote:
I just think... trying to persuade people like that is very needy.
Ralph (Goers) doesn't give me the impression like he's needy like
that ;-).
It is clear that the new version is a bit out of tune with the goals
these other projects might have. The requirements for a logging
package should be a lowest common denominator thing. If the product
is good, the other projects should notice anyway and take notice
themselves. I would focus on documentation and clarity. You're a bit
at odds with the times I think. Do you have the interests of your
users in mind, or of someone else? That's what makes it hard to give
a recommendation because it's just impossible. I mean "to become more
popular". If you feel the need to advertize or say "hey, don't forget
about us" so badly, that just means....
Well anybody can figure that out for himself I guess. But I was
looking at a topic called Update trunk to Java 7 from last May and it
didn't seem like their was an urgent need to do so.
Well it means you are on the wrong tract or not feeling confident.
Maybe you really feel like you need a call for attention, but.... ...
.. . . . . .. .....
Everybody already knows you lol. Your name is well-known. It just
seems like everyone is stuck using 1.2. Stuckerdiestuckstuckstuck.
You might want to send out for an honest appraisal or feedback.
Ask the question of whether Log4J 2 meets their goals. Ask the
question of whether 2.3 meets or met their goals. Ask the question of
whether 2.4 meets or will meet their goals. Ask what they want from a
logging package. Don't forget to mention the issues: Java 7. Public
vs. Core -- do they like that? Are they impressed by a separation of
public versus implementation API? If they have experience with the
product, do they feel the need to use Core functionality that is not
normally directly accessible from Public?. Did they feel their needs
were respected when the move to 2 was made? Do they feel the EOL of
v1 has been a necessary or required or helpful thing?. What are their
needs and interests? How do they feel about having to use two jars? I
would seriously consider asking these questions, all of them.
So don't ask for uptake, ask for feedback. I think that is the best
suggestion or advice I can offer. Ask them whether you are on the
right path. Ask this of your fellow Apache projects. Do that and you
will do well, or better, in the future. If such a thing as 'better'
would exist, but you can always do better than what you were before.
And that's true of everyone everywhere. That's just true of life.
Regards, B.
Op 14-8-2015 om 23:34 schreef Gary Gregory:
Something to think about after we get 2.4 out the door...
Do you think it appropriate for us to do some kind of outreach to
other Apache projects and say "hey, about about use log4j 2?"
Gary
--
E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com> |
ggreg...@apache.org <mailto:ggreg...@apache.org>
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
<http://garygregory.wordpress.com/>
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
