On Nov 30, 2004, at 6:19 AM, Eric Pugh wrote:
I think what he means is that we can't expect people to make changes just to
make Gump happy. But, we can *attempt* to influence them to help. And I
think that is where we are going wrong. For instance, Fulcrum components
didn't build very well until I got involved (and got lots of help!).. You
need a committer from the project being gumped to keep things running well.
As far as I know, there are no log4j committers actively involved in keeping
gump working. Hence, they made a backwards incompatible change, and the
fact that gump keeled over doesn't bother then.
Now, partly that may be a communication thing.. If Log4j fails, they get
emailed. If log4j breaks every body else, they don't... Without active
involvement by a group, the prospect of keeping things working becomes a
thankless task (witness Niclas's frustration). I thought "hey, I'll try
and help" and ran into, in an hour, the same frustration Niclas sees.. I am
not a committer (or even involved beyond the occasional email) with Log4j or
Velocity, so who do I got to prod for action?
Geir's email highlights a very clear issue with the whole deprecation/version cycle. He can't switch to log4j until it releases. They don't want to keep deprecated code around for forever.
I'm not asking for forever. Just one version... even a short lived one...
My take away lesson is really more of a reaffirmation - don't depend on outside things if you can help it...
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
