Maarten, I think there's just a bit of confusion. Too many projects, too many mailing lists and sometimes there's a surprise at how a message developed.
Don't take it personally. These are general comments about not having back channels and some where we can get messages crossed. I don't think Emmanuel expects anyone to cross post - he was surprised or confused perhaps about how the conversation developed. We've all made some mistakes on this topic. Alex On Jan 11, 2008 11:10 AM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 3:26 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After some discussion with David Loyd on IRC, the context has been > > clarified : Log2Log won't be an Apache project. > > > > Here is the copy of this convo : > > > > <dmlloyd> elecharny: don't worry - log2log is a completely separate > > project. No impact on MINA or any ASF project whatsoever - and thus it > > is out of Alex's (or anyone else's) jurisdiction :) > > <elecharny> where will it be stored ? > > <dmlloyd> jboss.org > > <elecharny> ok > > <elecharny> this was not clear in Trustin's mail... > > <elecharny> so my question :) > > <dmlloyd> it's a reasonable question :) > > <elecharny> can you answer it on the ML so that Alex don't get mad ? > > <dmlloyd> hm, well I think alex gets mad any time he sees the name > > "David Lloyd" and "Logging" together :) > > <dmlloyd> but I can do so > > <elecharny> dmlloyd, don't think that Alex has anything against you at > all. > > <elecharny> it's all about the way the ASF works > > <dmlloyd> yeah, the whole veto thing > > <elecharny> there are rules, they must be followed, thaht's it > > <elecharny> in three years, Alex just vetoed one single thing, and it > > was the log proposal > > <elecharny> pretty reasonnable ... > > <dmlloyd> sure > > > > > > Another thing that's I don't think is correct : I searched about an > > announcement on the SLF4j site about this MDC improvement and didn't > > found any. After some googling, I found the convos here : > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/basic-MDC-support-for-java.util.logging-td13142522.html > > > > It's certainly mandatory to CC the MINA mailing list for such things, as > > it has an impact on the code base. Some of us may have some opinions or > > ideas about other technical solutions, and would prefer to be informed > > before any decision is made. And having to google to get the rationals > > is definitively painful... > > > > This is the way we work, and it should be followed, for the good of the > > project ! > > Hi Emmanuel, > > I don't really understand what you are complaining about ? > > 1) Asking Ceki to make all SLF4J implementations MDC-capable was > discussed on this mailing-list before. > see > http://www.nabble.com/result-poll-logging-frameworks-td13097527s16868.html#a13209806 > > quoting myself: > "In fact, I think this functionality could be added to SLF4J to make > all SLF4J implementations MDC-capable. I'll ask Ceki what he thinks > about it." > > 2) The proposal to remove the IoSessionLogger was discussed in the same > thread > > 3) Announcing the fact that SLF4J accepted my patch and will have MDC > support for jul in the next version > was the very aim of this thread > (hence the title: "The new version of SLF4J is going to support MDC > for logging frameworks without MDC" > which actually should have been: > "The new version of SLF4J is going to support MDC for java.util.logging" ) > > So please explain me what went wrong according to you ? > Do you think that all my mails to the SLF4J mailing-list should have > been cross-posted to the MINA list ? > > kind regards > Maarten > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > cordialement, regards, > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > www.iktek.com > > directory.apache.org > > > > > > >
