> Remy Maucherat wrote: > > > Maybe at that time we *didn't* want to work together for some very specific > > reasons. After all, the original commons proposal, which I was part of, > > was -1ed only by Peter, because we apparently had diverging opinions about > > how shared code should be governed. > > Given the number of components in the commons, I think it has been quite > > successful with its goals, and it did abide by its basic principles > > (openness, bazaar style repository, extremely few external dependencies, no > > imposed coding style, etc etc). > > > Hmmm. Remy, I have to say this sounds quite petty.
It is not petty at all. All the points are mentioned are about having no BigGuy controlling what code I am supposed to be sharing. > > I'm also greatly disturbed by the timing and the ferocity of your > > complaints. AFAIK, nobody here did invent the facade pattern or the Logger > > interface (or whatever you choose to call it). It seems Rodney came up with > > something similar to LogKit by accident. > > > Timing maybe, ferocity? If you think that is ferocity, then you haven't > had any kind of debate yet. Well, I don't know. I've seen you once in a while on this list, the whole development process was open, the commit messages went by. The second a release proposal comes, a veto flies, and its justification is "I invented facaded logging APIs" (please allow me to paraphrase a bit). > The "I 'tried' and gave up" attitude is bad. Big difference here. I don't see why I should have to convince anyone to be able to share my code. Commons is just that. A place to share code, without too much political bagage hassle (unlike, for example, being a top-level project). > > Now, if all you want is some credit for "being there", then so be it, you > > have it :) You just could have asked it a lot sooner and in a lot nicer way. > > Sooner, no. Whatever ... > Nicer way, possibly. No kidding ;-) > Well, perhaps we can both get over ourselves and just move on. I'm willing > to burry the hatchet if you are. However, I *don't* like when projects that > can work together disassociate because of petty reasons. If there are *real* > technical reasons, I can appreciate it. The community reason is more than enough for me. I thought the biggest strenght of Jakarta was that it was a community, BTW. Technical stuff always come second in all the charters I've seen, and everything tends to encourage community building. So thanks, but I'll keep my community friendly "petty" stuff :) If we both want to move forward, I think now that you got your quote, you should withdraw your -1. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
