2008/4/17, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 16 April 2008 at 21:59, "Nathan Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Alexey Varlamov < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 2008/4/16, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view > > =cm&tf=0&[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >: > > > > I think we need more consensus on this. Is everyone in agreement about > > > > dumping log4cxx? Is this patch the appropriate replacement? > > > > > > Well, the suggestion has positive responses from me, Xiao-Feng and > > > Ilya Berezhniuk, and no specifc opposing arguments. Let's wait last > > > 24h, tomorrow I'll commit if no objections. > > > > > > Someone has to be the bad guy. > > I don't think anyone saw it like that. The issues you raised - > particularly about the confusion [see the current subject line for > example] about what was trying to be achieved were entirely reasonable. > > > I don't really care to honest, but I do know that big changes > > generally have big side-effects, so I think it's better to have > > more consensus and discussion up front. As the size and effect of > > the change increases, so should the discussion and number of people > > involved increase. > > Indeed. In this case, too much discussion happened on the JIRA before > Tim's comment. So discussion should probably have happened here before > the JIRA was even opened.
Agree, approach was far from ideal - it was a surprise to catch a huge patch w/o preliminary discussion or even indicating intentions in JIRA's comment. OK, does anyone still have a confusion about the issue? -- Alexey > > Regards, > Mark > > >
