You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4cxx-dev@logging.apache.org by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com> on 2013/12/30 03:10:31 UTC
January 2014 podling report content
Hi all,
We've got a podling report due on Wednesday the 1st. I've started on
being able to edit the form at
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2014.
In the meantime, would you take a look at some draft content (below)
and tell me if it looks okay or if there's something you'd like to see
changed? In particular, can someone confirm that last release date?
I'm having trouble tracking it down aside from
http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/changes-report.html which seems to
be missing some 0.10.x dot releases.
Thanks,
Rhys
--------------------
log4cxx2
Logging for C++
log4cxx2 has been incubating since 2013-12-09. It is a reboot of an
earlier, stalled logging project with a new collection of committers.
Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
1. Triage on old, pre-incubation issues in JIRA and reported mailing
lists with an eye towards initial re-release blockers
2. Solving those blockers on a minimal set of platforms to permit
initial re-release.
3. Reengaging former user community, many of whom left as previous
incarnation became dormant.
Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
aware of?
No.
How has the community developed since the last report?
The committers are getting acquainted with each other and the foundation.
How has the project developed since the last report?
This is our first report.
Date of last release:
2012-07-07
When were the last committers or PMC members elected?
N/A
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:41, Joseph Southwell wrote:
> Sorry, Wrong thread. I was not offering to take lead. Experienced
> programmer, beginner at open source.
There are no "leaders" at Apache. There are just people who "do the
things", and if you do it, you "lead" (in a way).
And you are very welcome here, even when you just start with open
source.
Cheers
>
> Joseph Southwell
> joseph@southwell.org
> The past is history,
> The future's a mystery,
> The present's a gift.
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Joseph Southwell <jo...@southwell.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I am probably willing too. I just currently don't know what I would
>> be promising.
>>
>> Joseph Southwell
>> joseph@southwell.org
>> The past is history,
>> The future's a mystery,
>> The present's a gift.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Thorsten Schöning
>> <ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
>>> am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
>>>
>>>> Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development
>>>> line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g.,
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/.
>>>
>>> I would go with log4j and use version specific names, like 0.11.2,
>>> 0.12.0, 1.0.0 etc.
>>>
>>>> Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes,
>>>> should
>>>> we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on
>>>> carnold's last commit?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> If so, anyone want to take lead there when the
>>>> time comes?
>>>
>>> I would give it a try, but I would focus on formalism alone and
>>> wouldn't test anything myself. I currently simply don't have the
>>> environment to do so and in my opinion any real development should
>>> go
>>> into 0.12.0. Your linked examples of the release process contain
>>> statements about tests, so would it be ok to just ignore those
>>> things?
>>> From my point of view releasing the current status of the code with
>>> all the patches applied would be a reasonable goal.
>>>
>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>
>>> Thorsten Schöning
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
>>> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>>>
>>> Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
>>> Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
>>> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>>>
>>> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
>>> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>>>
>>
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Joseph Southwell <jo...@southwell.org>.
Sorry, Wrong thread. I was not offering to take lead. Experienced programmer, beginner at open source.
Joseph Southwell
joseph@southwell.org
The past is history,
The future's a mystery,
The present's a gift.
On Dec 30, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Joseph Southwell <jo...@southwell.org> wrote:
> I am probably willing too. I just currently don't know what I would be promising.
>
> Joseph Southwell
> joseph@southwell.org
> The past is history,
> The future's a mystery,
> The present's a gift.
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
>
>> Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
>> am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
>>
>>> Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development
>>> line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g.,
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/.
>>
>> I would go with log4j and use version specific names, like 0.11.2,
>> 0.12.0, 1.0.0 etc.
>>
>>> Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes, should
>>> we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on
>>> carnold's last commit?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> If so, anyone want to take lead there when the
>>> time comes?
>>
>> I would give it a try, but I would focus on formalism alone and
>> wouldn't test anything myself. I currently simply don't have the
>> environment to do so and in my opinion any real development should go
>> into 0.12.0. Your linked examples of the release process contain
>> statements about tests, so would it be ok to just ignore those things?
>> From my point of view releasing the current status of the code with
>> all the patches applied would be a reasonable goal.
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>
>> Thorsten Schöning
>>
>> --
>> Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
>> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>>
>> Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
>> Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
>> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>>
>> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
>> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>>
>
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Joseph Southwell <jo...@southwell.org>.
I am probably willing too. I just currently don't know what I would be promising.
Joseph Southwell
joseph@southwell.org
The past is history,
The future's a mystery,
The present's a gift.
On Dec 30, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de> wrote:
> Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
> am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
>
>> Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development
>> line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g.,
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/.
>
> I would go with log4j and use version specific names, like 0.11.2,
> 0.12.0, 1.0.0 etc.
>
>> Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes, should
>> we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on
>> carnold's last commit?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If so, anyone want to take lead there when the
>> time comes?
>
> I would give it a try, but I would focus on formalism alone and
> wouldn't test anything myself. I currently simply don't have the
> environment to do so and in my opinion any real development should go
> into 0.12.0. Your linked examples of the release process contain
> statements about tests, so would it be ok to just ignore those things?
> From my point of view releasing the current status of the code with
> all the patches applied would be a reasonable goal.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Thorsten Schöning
>
> --
> Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
>
> Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
> Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
>
> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
>
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 16:04 schrieben Sie:
> Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development
> line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g.,
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/.
I would go with log4j and use version specific names, like 0.11.2,
0.12.0, 1.0.0 etc.
> Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes, should
> we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on
> carnold's last commit?
Yes.
> If so, anyone want to take lead there when the
> time comes?
I would give it a try, but I would focus on formalism alone and
wouldn't test anything myself. I currently simply don't have the
environment to do so and in my opinion any real development should go
into 0.12.0. Your linked examples of the release process contain
statements about tests, so would it be ok to just ignore those things?
From my point of view releasing the current status of the code with
all the patches applied would be a reasonable goal.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Reads very good to me, thanks for being so pro-active!
Going to sign it now
On 30 Dec 2013, at 16:14, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Alright, there's something up at
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2014. Please adjust or
> complain at will.
>
> Happy New Year if we don't speak again before,
> Rhys
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
The Zen Programmer: http://bit.ly/12lC6DL
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
Alright, there's something up at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2014. Please adjust or
complain at will.
Happy New Year if we don't speak again before,
Rhys
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>.
>> In particular, can someone confirm that last release date?
> AFAICS 0.11.0 is a renamed 0.10.1 and each fix and commit afterwards
> got contributed under that version number from 2008-07-01 until today....
>
> I currently don't understand when commits on trunk count as official
> releases...
I don't think 0.10.1 ever officially made it out the door (based on
http://archive.apache.org/dist/logging/log4cxx/). 0.10.0 may have
been the last "blessed" release as far as ASF is concerned (on
2008-04-03 per http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/changes-report.html).
I'll list 0.10.0 on 2008-04-03 for the podling report with an asterisk
and some small explanation. I'll do this. Please shout if you hate
the idea.
> We add back 0.10.1 as a
> official release and tag, everything afterwards until, but not
> including Christian's committed patches from the list and JIRA counts
> as 0.11.0 and the patches from Christian until today are 0.11.1 and
> count as the last official release of the project before incubating.
I like it but I'd skip "0.10.1" and just call it 0.11.0. In the wild
there are many 0.10.x-patchlevel things running about (e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/sid/liblog4cxx10) and unambiguously being a
new revision number might help getting this noticed and into the
distros a touch sooner. I also like patches applied by Christian
being a soon-to-follow 0.11.1.
> In my opinion we should afterwards branch the trunk as some new 0.12.0
> and incorporate all changes for our first release in there. We then get
> our first clean release by merging the 0.12.0 branch back to trunk.
I like it.
> This should be the first release back in the incubator.
To be careful on Incubation policy, I'd call the 0.11.0 and 0.11.1
incubation releases as well and be sure we follow the proper steps.
There's some nontrivial overhead in calling something a "release" now
that we're under incubation
(http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases).
> In this case we would always have a trunk as the last official
> release, work in branches and maybe only commit directly to trunk what
> needs to be changed on the website itself. Else I currently don't
> understand how one can see if work in progress on the trunk is an
> official release or not.
Agreed. Have a preference for the branch name for the development
line? No logging convention jumps out at my from looking at, e.g.,
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/log4j2/branches/.
Once https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-7092 closes, should
we start with getting that 0.11.0 release branch made from src on
carnold's last commit? If so, anyone want to take lead there when the
time comes?
- Rhys
Re: January 2014 podling report content
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
am Montag, 30. Dezember 2013 um 03:10 schrieben Sie:
> In the meantime, would you take a look at some draft content (below)
> and tell me if it looks okay or if there's something you'd like to see
> changed?
Reads good to me.
> In particular, can someone confirm that last release date?
> I'm having trouble tracking it down aside from
> http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/changes-report.html which seems to
> be missing some 0.10.x dot releases.
AFAICS 0.11.0 is a renamed 0.10.1 and each fix and commit afterwards
got contributed under that version number from 2008-07-01 until today.
2012-07-07 is the date of the last commit for the website, not on
log4cxx code. The last commit of the original dev on the code was
2010-06-14, after that date Christian committed some patches.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/logging/log4cxx/trunk/src/changes/changes.xml?r1=669316&r2=673097
I currently don't understand when commits on trunk count as official
releases, but how about the following: We add back 0.10.1 as a
official release and tag, everything afterwards until, but not
including Christian's committed patches from the list and JIRA counts
as 0.11.0 and the patches from Christian until today are 0.11.1 and
count as the last official release of the project before incubating.
In this case the last release date would be 2013-08-07.
In my opinion we should afterwards branch the trunk as some new 0.12.0
and incorporate all changes for our first release in there. We then get
our first clean release by merging the 0.12.0 branch back to trunk. This
should be the first release back in the incubator.
In this case we would always have a trunk as the last official
release, work in branches and maybe only commit directly to trunk what
needs to be changed on the website itself. Else I currently don't
understand how one can see if work in progress on the trunk is an
official release or not.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow