You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@logging.apache.org by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/03 11:19:34 UTC
log4cx: attic or incubation?
Hello folks,
please look at these few e-mails:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx-dev/201304.mbox/browser
For me there are two ways for log4cxx: incubation or attic.
I was outreaching for devs on log4cxx and got a few responses. It seems a couple
of people are interested in continuing this component. Most of them
said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
Without such a person I guess we have little chance in the incubator.
Maybe I am having a wrong view on it, so I ask you to voice your
opinion.
For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
Comments?
Christian
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
> circumstances.
All true. I find it hard to believe that in all these years nobody
needed a new feature.
Maybe it's a language thing and all cxx devs are really happy with
what they have.
But on the other hand you are right, contributing is difficult.
>> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I like this approach.
Please also see the mail from Gary. He proposed to set up an official
ASF mirror, from
which we could directly accept patches (I heard).
> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
> reboot.
The sad truth is that I never built log4cxx and I am not sure if I can
do it - i simply have never done anything with cxx. Maybe I will get
it with the help of the community. This at least would prove the
interest of the people who raised their hand over at log4cxx land
Thanks for speaking up!
Cheers
Christian
>
> - Rhys
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>.
> As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
> repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
> though and can be used.
The repo isn't silent because no one wants to contribute bug fixes. It is
silent because it has been effectively locked due to a lack of active
committers.
- Rhys
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
log4j 1.x build is also so complicated, and recently I considered
creating a Vagrant file for it.
http://vagrantup.com/
This might be cool for log4cxx too. But of course, this requires a bit
more time. I have managed to get into Puppet/Vagrant into a couple of
hours and its worth every minute, but if you will not need it, its of
course a lot of time.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Well, I just downloaded the source. It seems my first challenge is going to be getting it to compile on my Mac. I suppose I could fire up my Linux box or install an Ubuntu VM but I should be able to find the dependencies.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On May 4, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> I actually have enough of a C++ background that I could oversee incoming patches. My problem is that I have been consumed with Log4j. However, if it is only a few patches I could probably find the time. At the same time, I would not be wanting to be the one to do the releases.
>>
>> If you could look at the patches a bit (i can take care on the typos
>> and non-c++ related things) I might find out how to do a release.
>> So far only a few patches came in.
>>
>> In this case we really might try to create a asf git mirror as Gary
>> suggested and I can start with creating a rc (somehow)
>>
>> If we get that far, it might give others a push
>>
>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On May 4, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
>>>>> still an asset.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
>>>>> with Git?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
>>>>> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
>>>>
>>>> Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
>>>> which has asked me.
>>>> So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
>>>> nor do I plan to build up the skills.
>>>> I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
>>>> repository. I have applied a few
>>>> patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
>>>> oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.
>>>>
>>>> As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
>>>> repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
>>>> though and can be used.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
>>>> all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
>>>> Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
>>>> Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
>>>> benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of them
>>>>>>> said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>>>>>>> burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
>>>>>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>>>>>> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
>>>>>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>>>>>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
>>>>>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>>>>>> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>>>>>>> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>>>>>>> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>>>>>>> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>>>>>>> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>>>>>>> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like this approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>>>>>> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
>>>>>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
>>>>>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>>>>>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>>>>>> reboot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Rhys
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Well, I just downloaded the source. It seems my first challenge is going to be getting it to compile on my Mac. I suppose I could fire up my Linux box or install an Ubuntu VM but I should be able to find the dependencies.
Ralph
On May 4, 2013, at 12:27 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> I actually have enough of a C++ background that I could oversee incoming patches. My problem is that I have been consumed with Log4j. However, if it is only a few patches I could probably find the time. At the same time, I would not be wanting to be the one to do the releases.
>
> If you could look at the patches a bit (i can take care on the typos
> and non-c++ related things) I might find out how to do a release.
> So far only a few patches came in.
>
> In this case we really might try to create a asf git mirror as Gary
> suggested and I can start with creating a rc (somehow)
>
> If we get that far, it might give others a push
>
>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On May 4, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>>>>
>>>> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
>>>> still an asset.
>>>>
>>>> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
>>>> with Git?
>>>>
>>>> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>>>>
>>>> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
>>>> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
>>>
>>> Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
>>> which has asked me.
>>> So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
>>> nor do I plan to build up the skills.
>>> I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
>>> repository. I have applied a few
>>> patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
>>> oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
>>> it?
>>>
>>> That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.
>>>
>>> As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
>>> repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
>>> though and can be used.
>>>
>>> Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
>>> all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
>>> Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
>>> Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
>>> benefit.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of them
>>>>>> said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>>>>>> burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
>>>>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>>>>> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
>>>>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>>>>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
>>>>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>>>>> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>>>>>> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>>>>>> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>>>>>> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>>>>>> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>>>>>> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> I like this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>>>>> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
>>>>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
>>>>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>>>>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>>>>> reboot.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rhys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I actually have enough of a C++ background that I could oversee incoming patches. My problem is that I have been consumed with Log4j. However, if it is only a few patches I could probably find the time. At the same time, I would not be wanting to be the one to do the releases.
If you could look at the patches a bit (i can take care on the typos
and non-c++ related things) I might find out how to do a release.
So far only a few patches came in.
In this case we really might try to create a asf git mirror as Gary
suggested and I can start with creating a rc (somehow)
If we get that far, it might give others a push
> Ralph
>
> On May 4, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>>>
>>> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
>>> still an asset.
>>>
>>> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
>>> with Git?
>>>
>>> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>>>
>>> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
>>> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
>>
>> Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
>> which has asked me.
>> So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
>> nor do I plan to build up the skills.
>> I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
>> repository. I have applied a few
>> patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.
>>
>> In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
>> oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
>> it?
>>
>> That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.
>>
>> As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
>> repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
>> though and can be used.
>>
>> Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
>> all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
>> Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
>> Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
>> benefit.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most of them
>>>>> said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>>>>> burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>>>
>>>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
>>>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>>>> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
>>>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>>>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
>>>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>>>> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>>>> circumstances.
>>>>
>>>>> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>>>>> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>>>>> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>>>>> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>>>>> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>>>>> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>
>>>> I like this approach.
>>>>
>>>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>>>> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
>>>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
>>>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>>>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>>>> reboot.
>>>>
>>>> - Rhys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>>> Spring Batch in Action
>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I actually have enough of a C++ background that I could oversee incoming patches. My problem is that I have been consumed with Log4j. However, if it is only a few patches I could probably find the time. At the same time, I would not be wanting to be the one to do the releases.
Ralph
On May 4, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>>
>> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
>> still an asset.
>>
>> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
>> with Git?
>>
>> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>>
>> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
>> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
>
> Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
> which has asked me.
> So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
> nor do I plan to build up the skills.
> I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
> repository. I have applied a few
> patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.
>
> In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
> oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
> it?
>
> That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.
>
> As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
> repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
> though and can be used.
>
> Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
> all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
> Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
> Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
> benefit.
>
> Thanks!
> Christian
>
>
>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of them
>>>> said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>>>> burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>>
>>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
>>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>>> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
>>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
>>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>>> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>>> circumstances.
>>>
>>>> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>>>> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>>>> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>>>> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>>>> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>>>> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> I like this approach.
>>>
>>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>>> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
>>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
>>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>>> reboot.
>>>
>>> - Rhys
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
>> Spring Batch in Action
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
> https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>
> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
> still an asset.
>
> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
> with Git?
>
> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>
> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
which has asked me.
So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
nor do I plan to build up the skills.
I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
repository. I have applied a few
patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.
In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
it?
That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.
As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
though and can be used.
Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
benefit.
Thanks!
Christian
> Gary
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Most of them
>> > said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>> > burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>
>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>> circumstances.
>>
>> > For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>> > account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>> > if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>> > ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>> > back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>> > time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>> >
>> > Comments?
>>
>> I like this approach.
>>
>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>> reboot.
>>
>> - Rhys
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Hi All:
[Note that I am not and do not plan on working on log4cxx]
The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
still an asset.
I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
with Git?
You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)
Gary
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Most of them
> > said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
> > burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>
> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
> in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
> high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
> circumstances.
>
> > For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
> > account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
> > if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
> > ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
> > back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
> > time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I like this approach.
>
> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
> release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
> reboot.
>
> - Rhys
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Posted by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>.
> Most of them
> said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
> burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete. There's
not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
in some particular direction. That is, unless there's some burning
feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
mailing list in the years that I have been lurking. The problem seems
to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
high. It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
circumstances.
> For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
> account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
> if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
> ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
> back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
> time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>
> Comments?
I like this approach.
I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
release off the Apache-blessed sources. Trunk differs in slight but
important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds). This way the distro
package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
reboot.
- Rhys