I think most agree that's a reasonable plan. On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Dennis Lundberg <denn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree with Anders' proposal. Let us ship 3.1 of Maven using > slf4j-simple to get the change of logging api properly tried in the field. > > After that, maybe targeting 3.2, we can discuss *if* we need a complex > logging framework or not, and if so *which* framework would best suit > the needs that Maven has. > > On 2012-11-11 13:35, Anders Hammar wrote: >> Here's my suggestion: >> >> We keep the current state where we have the new logging API (slf4j) and the >> System.out style implementation. Then we (Olivier?) create a JIRA ticket >> for moving to a different logging implementation using a more flexible >> logging framework. Then we discuss the benefits of doing that move. We >> could even ask the users if it is something that people even want. >> >> /Anders >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Perso I propose a change by pointing you (you means other maven dev >>>> folks too) to a branch I made somewhere but you commit code without >>>> listening POV from others. >>>> If you could wait to hear what other thinks that could be lovely.... >>> >>> I believe you do exactly what you accuse me of Olivier. You did not >>> propose a change, you pointed to your branch with a terse "fixed" as if it >>> were a foregone conclusion. >>> >>> I started the SLF4J work, I worked with Ceki to try and minimize the >>> change, keep the ITs passing while preserving the existing behaviour and >>> keeping the dependency size and complexity to a minimum. >>> >>> I've been working on restoring the behaviour and my goal, at least, was to >>> reduce the possible complication of using a larger framework. The second I >>> created the JIRA issue, you point at your branch and say "fixed" without >>> any explanation. You used the console transfer listener not working -- and >>> I admit that was annoying and I apologize for leaving it like that so long >>> -- as a vehicle for adding your preferred logging framework. My goal was to >>> introduce SLF4J in a minimal way, at least to start. So if that conflicts >>> with your goal then that's fine but jumping in the middle of the work I'm >>> doing with a change that proposes to throw away the work I did with SLF4J >>> Simple is not fine. Couching it as me not taking into account a wider >>> discussion as a response to me finishing what I started with a veto even >>> less so. >>> >>> I didn't change any of the dependencies, completed the work I started and >>> fixed what I broke which I believe is reasonable. >>> >>> If the discussion is now transitioning to users want flexible logging and >>> the choice of a logging framework that's fine. But I still maintain the CLI >>> use of logging can be limited and constrained while allowing integrators to >>> make the small changes necessary to add flexible logging. But if we want to >>> choose a framework let's look at the options, if people want to go that >>> route, and select the best option. >>> >>> Reverting my commit will break the console transfer listener. The >>> discussion about the use of a logging framework, and its choice if so >>> decided, is not a foregone conclusion. So I will revert my commit in the >>> morning when I wake up if you want the broken behaviour restored. But note >>> I believe you are being unreasonable in that you haven't said a word until >>> I raised the JIRA issue today and then took offense to me finishing my work >>> while I was in the process of correcting what I broke. Obviously you were >>> working on your branch while I was working on my fixes but nothing was >>> brought up aside from JIRA. >>> >>> You have made sweeping changes in the transport and while you have made >>> improvements, you have introduced several things that don't work as they >>> did previously -- and I have brought these up with you directly, especially >>> as it pertains to security -- I have not jumped down your throat with a >>> veto as I expect you will eventually fix them because you care about users. >>> Please do me the same courtesy. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Olivier Lamy >>>>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com >>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Jason van Zyl >>>>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>>>> Founder, Apache Maven >>>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth. >>>>> >>>>> -- Unknown >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Olivier Lamy >>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com >>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if i have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -- Buddha
