commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject Re: [Logging] [VOTE] Commons Logging 1.0 Release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:04:44 GMT
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> On 2/1/02 3:43 PM, "Scott Sanders" <> wrote:
> > How do you enforce this?  How do you handle this in the Avalon world?  I
> > consider (only just recently, BTW), that a committer in Commons is a
> > committer to the entire commons codebase, including the sandbox.
> And that's the problem that I think peter is pointing out - that people can
> have binding votes on projects that they have nothing to do with...

If he votes, that means it has somethig to do with the component.

Peter does have a lot of experience in logging - so his vote and feedback
is as valid as any other developer that participates in the common-logger
development. It is in fact great if Peter sends his -1 and arguments on
the common-logger, as this provides feedback and is a valuable contribution in

It would be far worse if Peter would not be able to vote.

So the model works very well.

> One of the motivations for commons was a place for small*, discrete
> components to be able to be packaged and presented for reuse by both Jakarta
> projects and developers at large.

I think the main motivation was to promote sharing and cooperation.
Community is more important than code - and if Peter added himself to the
list of commons-logger contributors, than that's a good step :-)

The reverse doesn't seem to work that well - I'm not sure how many
commons contributors are going to send enough patches to logkit to
become commiters there, and then get the right to vote. And it seems
people prefer to participate and use projects where they are not just
users, but can be commiters and express opinions and vote if they
need to.

> I too believed then and still believe now that we would be better served
> with the conventional Apache/Jakarta committer model in Commons, where each
> component is a well defined group of interested people, a part of the larger
> community as well, of course.

I believe we would be better served with the commons model in


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message