Hi Erik,
Thank you for the information about the typo. Unfortunately, the
0.0.0-EMPTY initiative was shut down due to opposition by Jochen
Wiedmann and Rahul Akolkar among others. Other voices favorable to the
initiative were not heard or were not persistent enough.
Anyway, we'll have to resort
Not sure where to report this. There is a tiny typo in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/sandbox/logging_empty/trunk/pom.xml
Please search for the text "0.0.0-EMPPTY", with 2 P's.
Regards,
Erik.
PS. Ceki, very good idea you presented in this thread.
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Henri Y
Henri Yandell wrote:
I've given you karma for the sandbox. Make a logging branch in there
and it can be voted on for release into proper.
Great. Thank you. I just successfully created
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/sandbox/logging_empty/
Hen
--
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliabl
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> 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
>> ne
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
em
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> We got into this mess because there wasn't a solution and we needed
>> something for Commons libraries. Personally I think there is gain in
>> gently end of lifeing Commons Logging in favour of a focused logging
>> pro
sebb wrote:
On 15/05/2009, nicolas de loof wrote:
I'm +1 to have a 0.0 version in central under commons-logging groupId.
- this can't break the LATEST rule
- this will only apply if user explicitly declare this version as dependency
(or dependencyManagement)
- this don't break the existin
On 15/05/2009, nicolas de loof wrote:
> I'm +1 to have a 0.0 version in central under commons-logging groupId.
> - this can't break the LATEST rule
> - this will only apply if user explicitly declare this version as dependency
> (or dependencyManagement)
> - this don't break the existing commo
I'm +1 to have a 0.0 version in central under commons-logging groupId.
- this can't break the LATEST rule
- this will only apply if user explicitly declare this version as dependency
(or dependencyManagement)
- this don't break the existing commosn-logging user-base
- this avoid introducing some th
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hi Ralph and co,
The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I
remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However,
I am not aware of any progress on the issue.
Anyway, my request i
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Hi Ralph and co,
>
> The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I
> remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However,
> I am not aware of any progress on the issue.
>
> Anyway, my request involves allow
Hi Ralph and co,
The issue has been raised on the Maven list about 5 times, and if I
remember correctly, it was raised by yourself once or twice. However,
I am not aware of any progress on the issue.
Anyway, my request involves allowing commons-logging v99 to be
published on ibiblio. This needs
I would suggest bringing this up on the Maven dev list. I could see
adding this as a feature to 3.0 to allow artifacts to be "redirected"
to a replacement artifact.
On May 14, 2009, at 2:23 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello all,
A large number of Maven projects declare commons-logging as a
depen
On 14/05/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 14/05/2009, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb wrote:
> >
> > > Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as system ?
> >
> >
> > Beg your pardon, but this is against any use of transitive
> > dependencies. Likewise for "pr
I myself use slf4j and this "99" hack
Using en empty "commons-logging-0.0-null.jar" would NOT break the LATEST
keyword resolution and could be forced from project
(with provided scope)
This would be a nice solution to globaly exclude xommons-logging without
breaking existing builds
Nicolas
200
On 14/05/2009, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>
> > Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as system ?
>
>
> Beg your pardon, but this is against any use of transitive
> dependencies. Likewise for "provided", of course. If it is a
> dependency, then
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Use scope "provided" - if any. Actually if people use a master pom and
declare CL in the depMgmt section with this scope, it should do the trick.
Provided just means that the artifact will not be included in the
packaged application. However, during development, within t
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:35 AM, sebb wrote:
> Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as system ?
Beg your pardon, but this is against any use of transitive
dependencies. Likewise for "provided", of course. If it is a
dependency, then it is. If anyone else intends to replace it, okay,
but t
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Would the Apache Commons community, out of courtesy to developers,
> consent to commons-logging version "99.0-does-not-exist" to be
> published in the main maven repository?
No, never do that! It possibly breaks any algorithm that attempts to
sebb wrote:
Has anyone tried declaring commons logging as system ?
Won't that stop it being added to the classpath?
I have not tries this but wouldn't declaring a dependency in the
system scope force the artifact to be present on the file system of
the host to begin with?
--
Ceki Gülcü
Log
sebb wrote at Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2009 11:35:
> On 14/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> A large number of Maven projects declare commons-logging as a
>> dependency. Thus, if a developer wishes to use jcl-over-slf4j instead
>> of commons-logging, he or she would need to declare a c
On 14/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A large number of Maven projects declare commons-logging as a
> dependency. Thus, if a developer wishes to use jcl-over-slf4j instead
> of commons-logging, he or she would need to declare a commons-logging
> exclusion in all of his/her dependen
Hello all,
A large number of Maven projects declare commons-logging as a
dependency. Thus, if a developer wishes to use jcl-over-slf4j instead
of commons-logging, he or she would need to declare a commons-logging
exclusion in all of his/her dependencies which transitively depend on
commons-loggin
23 matches
Mail list logo
