Proposed date for 0.10.0 release?

["Vlietstra, Joe" <Jo...@ngc.com>]

Hi all,
We've been successfully building log4cxx from the SVN repository
but a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) issue has cropped up during
operations -- our procedures require us to identify the exact version
of any software item running on any of our operational computers.
I worked around this issue during an August 2007 audit by identifying
log4cxx version as 0.10.0 (beta).  Need a proposed release date for
0.10.0 to survive the February 2008 audit.
Joe Vlietstra

RE: Proposed date for 0.10.0 release?

[Stephen Bartnikowski <sb...@barkinglizards.com>]

Btw Curt,

I've got my server product on Mac OS X Server with a log4cxx snapshot
(thanks again for the XCode project generation guide). I'm at the point now
where I could use a number of automated clients to produce some profiling
data for log4cxx performance testing if you needed it.

Just give me a few days' notice since I've got a full plate right now.

Thanks,
Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Log4CXX User
Subject: Re: Proposed date for 0.10.0 release?


On Jan 28, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Vlietstra, Joe wrote:

> Hi all,
> We've been successfully building log4cxx from the SVN repository but a 
> FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) issue has cropped up during operations 
> -- our procedures require us to identify the exact version of any 
> software item running on any of our operational computers.
> I worked around this issue during an August 2007 audit by identifying 
> log4cxx version as 0.10.0 (beta).  Need a proposed release date for 
> 0.10.0 to survive the February 2008 audit.
> Joe Vlietstra

I'm working on breaking the dependency on LGPL'd CPPUNIT (bug
LOGCXX-225) at the moment.  That is the last significant blocker that  
I know of that would prevent preparing a release candidate.   The plan  
after that would be:

Remove @author tags (now considered bad form and many are carried over from
log4j and list authors that have never touched the C++ code) Remove @since
tags (a mismatch of log4j and log4cxx versions) Align Ant build options with
the ./configure options Improve generated MSVC and other IDE projects
Prepare release candidate for testing.

Once a release candidate is out, moving to a release would require having
enough list participants test and report on the build to motivate other
Logging Services PMC members to review and vote on the release.  At least 3
1+ votes from PMC members are required for a release.  Since I'm the only
currently active PMC member contributing to log4cxx, I'm going to have to
plead with PMC members from log4net and Chainsaw developers to vet the
release.

I've said it so many times that it is bound to eventually be right, but I
hope to have a release candidate out for review in the next two weeks.

Re: Proposed date for 0.10.0 release?

[Curt Arnold <ca...@apache.org>]

On Jan 28, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Vlietstra, Joe wrote:

> Hi all,
> We've been successfully building log4cxx from the SVN repository
> but a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) issue has cropped up during
> operations -- our procedures require us to identify the exact version
> of any software item running on any of our operational computers.
> I worked around this issue during an August 2007 audit by identifying
> log4cxx version as 0.10.0 (beta).  Need a proposed release date for
> 0.10.0 to survive the February 2008 audit.
> Joe Vlietstra

I'm working on breaking the dependency on LGPL'd CPPUNIT (bug  
LOGCXX-225) at the moment.  That is the last significant blocker that  
I know of that would prevent preparing a release candidate.   The plan  
after that would be:

Remove @author tags (now considered bad form and many are carried over  
from log4j and list authors that have never touched the C++ code)
Remove @since tags (a mismatch of log4j and log4cxx versions)
Align Ant build options with the ./configure options
Improve generated MSVC and other IDE projects
Prepare release candidate for testing.

Once a release candidate is out, moving to a release would require  
having enough list participants test and report on the build to  
motivate other Logging Services PMC members to review and vote on the  
release.  At least 3 1+ votes from PMC members are required for a  
release.  Since I'm the only currently active PMC member contributing  
to log4cxx, I'm going to have to plead with PMC members from log4net  
and Chainsaw developers to vet the release.

I've said it so many times that it is bound to eventually be right,  
but I hope to have a release candidate out for review in the next two  
weeks.