Since the message was not prefaced with "[VOTE]" I figured this was more a matter of opinion than one of actual voting/deciding. And Paul has subsequently called an official vote.
If any logging services project wants to move to SVN ahead of a coordinated effort, who am I to stop them? And I am willing to coordinate the effort to switch to SVN for all of logging services, but I have to finish my other log4j tasks first. We can continue the discussion on logging-general. -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Ceki G�lc� [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:54 AM > To: Log4J Developers List; 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: Chainsaw as seperate CVS module? > > At 05:51 PM 2/23/2005, Mark Womack wrote: > > >-1 on doing it in Subversion, for now. I think we need to look at the > SVN > >issue as a whole for all of the Logging Services projects and coordinate > the > >jump. > > Mar, do you really mean to veto the creation of the chainsaw module in > SVN? > Although I also (much) prefer to see new module created in CVS, if the > people who are going to do the work prefer SVN, the decision should be > left > to them. > > Casting a veto is a pretty serious thing. In some projects, they are cast > left and right -- as a result their communities tend to dwindle over time. > (I prefer not to give names or point fingers.) > > >-Mark > > -- > Ceki G�lc� > > The complete log4j manual: http://www.qos.ch/log4j/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
