Romain, please see the mail from today in the morning with the topic '[DISCUSS] logging in core' That was way before I committed and pushed it.
You even gave your +1 ;) LieGrue, strub > On Saturday, 3 January 2015, 23:04, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
