On Tuesday 14 December 2004 22:57, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > When a totally silly problem attains such cataclysmic proportions, it > puts us (log4j developers) under unnecessary and useless > pressure.
My sincerest apologies. Of course, Log4J are entitled to "fuck up" from time to time. That is not something I want to undermine, and if it came across like that, then I am truly sorry. > Please revise your model so that a silly mistake can be > sidestepped without affecting 200 projects. For example, just alerting > log4j-dev and having the 200 affected projects to use yesterday's > version of log4j would have been much better. This is actually what the current implementation tries to do, but it has not been solved properly. But Stefano is now on a mission to re-do a lot of Gump's behaviour, and hopefully there will be improvements in both this area, as well as the notification system. > I am pleased to see that the problem on our side was corrected > promptly. I am much less so with nature of the social interaction that > led to it. Looking back at my posts, I have a hard time seeing them as coming on hard. The first post was a plain "FYI" in case you guys haven't noticed. The second was a response to Mark noticing it as well, where I have both a "May I suggest..." and a smiley... I would like to know, if it is some old grudges you have against me, or how humble does one have to be, not to offend you, Ceki... I am confused. Cheers Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
