I didnt say i like it just it doesnt add any mandatory dep and solves a need. Issue with it is the same as what you did: no discussion - was surely too early. Le 3 janv. 2015 22:54, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Romain, explain me why you like the logging stuff? It introduces > dependencies to 3 other libs without adding anything. jul is totally enough > as everyone can route it to any other logging framework himself very easily. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > On Saturday, 3 January 2015, 22:34, Romain Manni-Bucau < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > We didnt discuss it so +1 for removal - btw you removed legal code as > well > > (logging stuff) > > > > Le 3 janv. 2015 22:32, "Werner Keil" <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > >> It's hard do judge by files that were already removed, what's the > > evidence > >> they should be from Spring? > >> > >> If the effort can be overseen rather easily, I think I'm fine with > >> +1 for B > >> but in future cases I really would like to know and learn why such > files > >> are an issue and which of them. > >> > >> Werner > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Reinhard Sandtner < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > +1 for B > >> > > >> > keep it simple ;-) > >> > > >> > lg > >> > reini > >> > > >> > > Am 03.01.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Mark Struberg > > <[email protected]>: > >> > > > >> > > As you might have read in the previous mail I did remove some > > code > >> which > >> > has no clean IP provenance. The code seems to have been taken from > the > >> > Spring project. Although it is ALv2 and so the license is fine we > > still > >> > don't own the copyright and there was no IP check done for this > > code. > >> > > > >> > > This all would be resolvable by going into the Spring SCM > > history, > >> check > >> > who wrote the code parts and patches, make sure it was not e.g. taken > >> from > >> > a GPL source, etc. After that we would need to ask Spring for a code > >> grant. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > All this is doable but a certain amount of work. And thus I > > really > >> > suggest to do this only if we really need that code. > >> > > > >> > > 1.) do we really need those code parts? Do we need most of the > >> > spring-ant integration? What for? > >> > > 2.) Wouldn't it be easier to write the functionality > > ourselves and be > >> > able to only implement the pieces we really need? Currently all we > > need > >> is > >> > ClassLoader.getResources() and be done. > >> > > > >> > > Thus please VOTE on > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > A.) Go through the IP clearing and try to get the rights for the > > Spring > >> > code > >> > > > >> > > B.) Simply write those pieces ourselves. It's no rocket > > science, > >> really! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > +1 for B from me. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > LieGrue, > >> > > strub > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
