On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 03:58 AM, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>> paulo - if you wanted to see that code used as commons-logging then you >> should have made a proper proposal. > > Why should I start a new project when there is one running and before it > is clear that I disagree with its design options? > > That is what I want to avoid in the first place! you should have made a proposal about the changes you'd like to see in the interface. if enough people voted for the changes, they would have been adopted. > And since the current version is almost a copy of Peter's code, which I > use, it looks like there were no different design options, isn't it? it's the process that is important. what was important to me was not the design of the interface but achieving a consensus within the commons about what the design should be. > >> why should i fight advocacy wars on your behalf? > > LOL > It is so funny that you still think I need support to fight such wars. you need the support of at least one committer if you want to get anything changed. i can't offer opinions about why no one else offered you active support - only my own reasons for not doing so. in order to do anything about your patch i would have had to engage actively in an attempt to persuade my fellow committers to reverse their previously stated opposition to this code. >> FYI the prior art you are talking about had previously been vetoed to >> death. commons-logging was created as a green-fields implementation - not >> by myself, incidentally - which could bypass the whole dispute by going >> back to first principles and building a consensus that way. smuggling >> peter's code into the implementation would not have been a good way of >> achieving those aims. > > I am still trying to understand: > - WHY someone can not directly fork Apache code if there is an obstacle > from the original project to do something different? > - WHY is it necessary to redesign the wheel to get just the exactly the > same wheel? > > The _only_ reason you gave me was about the Avalon stuff having Peter's > name and if that is the only reason then I have to consider it plain > stupid. if you want to understand, look at the list archives. peter's code had been vetoed - which is a excellent good reason not to use it. - robert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
