jbertram commented on a change in pull request #662:
URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq/pull/662#discussion_r782451352
##########
File path: pom.xml
##########
@@ -82,7 +80,8 @@
<junit-version>4.13.2</junit-version>
<hamcrest-version>1.3</hamcrest-version>
<karaf-version>4.2.10</karaf-version>
- <log4j-version>1.2.17</log4j-version>
+ <slf4j-version>1.7.30</slf4j-version>
+ <log4j-version>2.14.1</log4j-version>
Review comment:
> Not every corporation allows their staff to contribute back to open
source (tricky copyright), so I wouldn't say "great position" for all companies
(certainly not mine).
@tallpsmith, that's fair enough. I should have said, "...any vendor/supplier
_who chooses_ to participate in an open source project (e.g. ActiveMQ) is in a
great position..." Lots of corporations have figured out how to participate in
(i.e. not just _use_) open source, and they are in a great position to get
exactly what they want from those projects, usually to the benefit of the whole
community. Any company that doesn't participate has _chosen_ not to - for
whatever reason. Those companies don't make particularly healthy members of the
community. As noted in the recent [ASF position
paper](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Position+Paper),
"Community is defined by those who show up and do the work." But I digress.
> ...it would be _preferabble_ if dependencies are reviewed, and older ones
migrated away from.
That's exactly what this PR is about. Nobody on this thread is advocating
otherwise.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
