Remy Maucherat wrote:
Glenn Nielsen wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
<ballot>
[ ] +1 I Support the idea of a branch, and will help maintain it.
[ ] +0 I like the idea
[ ] -0 I don't like the idea
[X] -1 I'm against the idea of branching
</ballot>
Before branching and having to maintain patches in two branches,
why not try to fix the builds and/or change the implemenation of the
additional JMX support so that it can be built optionally.
Sorry, but this is not possible, and I will *not* include these changes
in 4.1.x, at least not for now.
Why is it not possible to add (optional) JMX support to j-t-c components so
that we don't have to branch?
I did not say anything about 4.1, just that I feel it is preferable to not
have to maintain two j-t-c code bases.
I am a huge +1 on using JMX to capture runtime monitoring data,
but -1 on having two branches to maintain in j-t-c.
I think this is a majority vote. Besides, it was agreed on before that a
branch would be created in j-t-c.
Please point me at the previous vote. If we voted and approved branching j-t-c
previously why wasn't it branched then and why are we voting again?
Regards,
Glenn
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
