I agree with Niclas. Unless there is something else going on here, his suggestion was appropriate. I just did not take any action because I figured Yoav would fix it the right way when he had a chance. It didn't look like there were any other dependencies, but hey, I haven't been keeping track of what everyone is doing. I was in the middle of something else I wanted to do for the project.
The fact that 200 projects were affected in Gump is a Gump problem, not a log4j problem. If there are that many projects in there, all dependent on each other in a multitude of ways, it amazes me that Gump ever completes a nightly build of all the projects. I like Gump, I support it, but I am not going to take special action to make sure everything is go for Gump every night. I'm more concerned that there might be something up with the main log4j build script. Yoav did a recompile before submitting. And Jake had that strange compile behavior recently too. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:48 AM To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j/src/java/org/apache/log4j/net SMTPAppender.java 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
