Henri Yandell wrote:
We're not actually ceding control though. I'm assuming the 0.0 or 99.0 version will be released through us etc etc. As you're an Apache committer I don't see any reason why that should be an issue. If we need to release a 0.0.0 (or whatever) later to fix an issue in the empty pom, we could.
True. BTW, thank you for rekindling this thread.
In terms of helping sfl4j gain marketshare at commons-logging's loss - more power to slf4j. You don't gain anything long term by protectionism.
I agree. However, you need to have a certain perspective to come to that realization.
Something for the Maven guys to try and solve before that day arrives I guess. Wonder what Phil et al think to making DBCP dependent on SFL4J :) Anyway +1 to the 0.0 approach. I like the 'zero'ness of it to imply that you're getting nothing, as opposed to 99 which feels more like there is something there. As long as it fills your needs, and protects from any LATEST issues it sounds like a win-win.
Very good. I'll start working on this in a 0.0 branch and once done, submit for a vote on a release.
Hen
-- Ceki Gülcü Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java. http://logback.qos.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
