> On May 26, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:18 PM, ceki <ceki@... >> <mailto:ceki@...>> wrote:
>> On 25.05.2012 19 <tel:25.05.2012%2019>:42, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> Over in Commons-lang we've been following the Apache guideline
>> to avoid
>> @author tags, these grow quickly to long and stale lists. The
>> POM can be
>> used to track who contributes, all in one place. I propose to
>> @author tags here as well (1.x has these tags, I am not sure
>> about 2.0).
>> This has been proposed several times in the past and rejected each
>> I do not see why we should go against the Apache board's decision:
>> - author tags are officially discouraged. these create difficulties in
>> establishing the proper ownership and the protection of our
>> committers. there are other social issues dealing with collaborative
>> development, but the Board is concerned about the legal ramifications
>> around the use of author tags
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200402.mbox/%3C4039F65E.7020406@...%3E >> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-jmeter-dev/200402.mbox/<4039F65E.7020406@...>>
> As I recall this was a strong recommendation, not a mandate. While I
> would prefer to see them removed I also think it is appropriate to
> respect Ceki's wishes regarding Log4j 1.x.
>> Furthermore and because I have not worked with Ceki in the past, I cannot
>> help but see a conflict of interest with his non-ASF logging projects.
> On this I have to disagree. I will admit that I had this same thought in
> the past, but although Ceki clearly prefers SLF4J/Logback to Log4j he
> hasn't done anything in this community to prevent competition, such as
> the work I've done on Log4j 2. In fact, he did take a brief look at it
> to validate some areas of Log4j2 such as its binding to SLF4J. Likewise
> I also participate in the Logback and SLF4J communities and will
> occasionally mention something regarding Log4j2 and Ceki has never told
> me I'm out of line (I try really hard not to be). Furthermore, although
> he states on this web site that Logback is better than Log4j, I can't
> really fault him for that since it is true.
Thanks once again.
> To be honest, I'd love to see Ceki contribute code to Log4j2 and, in
> fact, there is nothing from preventing him from doing that.
I am not going to bullshit you. Although I like many of the things
you've done in log4j2, I won't be working on it in the near
future. Having said that, you never know, things change. BTW, the
invitation goes the other way round as well. You are welcome to
continue contributing to logback as you had done in the past. I know
that the message interface was a major sticking point but the idea is
likely to make it into the SLF4J interface in a major way sometime in
the future. It just has not happened yet.