You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org> on 2004/01/08 10:20:41 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>> What is it we are voting access for here? Is it to the overall
>> logging project repository? To a CVS module for the log4net code that
>> is to be created?
>
>
> I am inclined to create a new CVS module for log4net and for each
> sub-project. If a log4-X committer wants to commit a patch to project
> log4-Y, they can ask to become a log4-Y committer.
+1.
>
>> Also - is log4net being directly imported or is it going through the
>> incubator? My understanding would be the latter given it's bringing
>> new developers in, but my guess would be that it would be fairly
>> simple if the license issues are simple?
>
>
> As long as the legal questions are properly covered, I don't the think
> the ASF board will oppose the incubation process to take place here at LS.
>
My understanding is that it would need to go through the incubator as we
are bringing new code and new developers into Apache. However I have
CCd to general@incubator to get a feeling from the people there as well.
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
...
>> However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
>
> according to incubator policy, inside incubator cvs
>
> incubator/site/projects/${project-name}.cwiki
>
> which gets generated using forrest into
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/${project-name}.html
As I have already told you :-) you have karma to it, but if you tell me
the others that need access as part of the incubating projects, just ask.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Given that no one has yet answered, probably my question was silly.
nah, the subject line threw me off...I suspect many people are ignoring
the rest of the thread :D
> However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
according to incubator policy, inside incubator cvs
incubator/site/projects/${project-name}.cwiki
which gets generated using forrest into
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/${project-name}.html
> Can we have it placed within the Logging Services site?
Preferably not (keeping all incubation status files close together makes
it easier to find one, for everyone, especially 4 years from now). I
suggest you refer to the incubator file from the logging services status
files/status pages (and I would refer to a viewcvs reference as the site
always lags behind a little).
cheers!
- LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Ceki,
> I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed.
AIUI, these documents should be checked into the Incubator CVS module under
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/site/projects/. When they are
successful, they get moved one level down. Keeping them in one place makes
the record keeping easier for everyone. If you do not have karma for the
module, you'll be granted it. I believe that we have already adopted a
policy that says that all PMC Chairs should have karma. I just don't see it
in the avail file.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
Hello,
Given that no one has yet answered, probably my question was silly.
However, I still don't know where the STATUS file should be placed. Can we
have it placed within the Logging Services site?
TIA,
At 02:01 PM 1/14/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>At 08:01 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>>
>> > It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If
>> > it is an inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a
>> > service.
>>
>>Nutshell: the purpose of the Incubator is to help bring projects into the
>>ASF, while ensuring that the proper procedures are followed with respect to
>>the code, and that the projects have healthy communities.
>>
>>Honestly, I think that you are spending more time worrying about Incubation
>>than it would take to *do* it. From what I can see, and I am doing this
>>from memory without looking at the STATUS file:
>>
>> - Sponsor: Ceki Gülcü (Logging PMC Chair)
>> - PMC: Logging
>> - Committers: at least 4, according to the SourceForge page
>> - License: Apache Software License
>>
>>So this seems really silly. You should have no problem filling out a copy
>>of the STATUS file to record: that you have gotten CLAs for all of the
>>Committers, that they already use the ASL, that there are a sufficient
>>number of them to have a minimally healthy community, that the project is
>>going to be managed under the Logging PMC, that there aren't any improper
>>license dependencies; and then you ought to be in good shape.
>>
>>Can you explain to me what you see as a problem?
>
>Thank you for filling in some of fields of the STATUS file.
>
>The question is where do I get the STATUS file and where do I put it?
>
>1) It really takes ages to CVS check out the incubator-site module.
>2) Checking out "incubator-site/build/site/log4net" results "in no such
>module."
>
>So, where do I get the STATUS file and where do I put it? Could the STATUS
>file be placed at the Logging Services site (under CVS control)?
>
>
>> --- Noel
>
>--
>Ceki Gülcü
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 08:01 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> > It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If
> > it is an inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a
> > service.
>
>Nutshell: the purpose of the Incubator is to help bring projects into the
>ASF, while ensuring that the proper procedures are followed with respect to
>the code, and that the projects have healthy communities.
>
>Honestly, I think that you are spending more time worrying about Incubation
>than it would take to *do* it. From what I can see, and I am doing this
>from memory without looking at the STATUS file:
>
> - Sponsor: Ceki Gülcü (Logging PMC Chair)
> - PMC: Logging
> - Committers: at least 4, according to the SourceForge page
> - License: Apache Software License
>
>So this seems really silly. You should have no problem filling out a copy
>of the STATUS file to record: that you have gotten CLAs for all of the
>Committers, that they already use the ASL, that there are a sufficient
>number of them to have a minimally healthy community, that the project is
>going to be managed under the Logging PMC, that there aren't any improper
>license dependencies; and then you ought to be in good shape.
>
>Can you explain to me what you see as a problem?
Thank you for filling in some of fields of the STATUS file.
The question is where do I get the STATUS file and where do I put it?
1) It really takes ages to CVS check out the incubator-site module.
2) Checking out "incubator-site/build/site/log4net" results "in no such
module."
So, where do I get the STATUS file and where do I put it? Could the STATUS
file be placed at the Logging Services site (under CVS control)?
> --- Noel
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If
> it is an inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a
> service.
Nutshell: the purpose of the Incubator is to help bring projects into the
ASF, while ensuring that the proper procedures are followed with respect to
the code, and that the projects have healthy communities.
Honestly, I think that you are spending more time worrying about Incubation
than it would take to *do* it. From what I can see, and I am doing this
from memory without looking at the STATUS file:
- Sponsor: Ceki Gülcü (Logging PMC Chair)
- PMC: Logging
- Committers: at least 4, according to the SourceForge page
- License: Apache Software License
So this seems really silly. You should have no problem filling out a copy
of the STATUS file to record: that you have gotten CLAs for all of the
Committers, that they already use the ASL, that there are a sufficient
number of them to have a minimally healthy community, that the project is
going to be managed under the Logging PMC, that there aren't any improper
license dependencies; and then you ought to be in good shape.
Can you explain to me what you see as a problem?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 03:02 PM 1/12/2004 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> >
> > Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
> > position? Is it warranted?
>
>the resolution of the legal aspects is done by the incubator.
>why don't restaurants perform their own health inspections?
>it's not a radical position. the incubator exists, in part,
>to *assure* that all the necesssary steps are taken.
It would helpful if the purpose of the Incubator was clarified. If it is an
inspection tool, then it should not be disguised as a service. Taking your
analogy, health inspectors do not go around pretending to be a restaurant.
>--
>#ken P-)}
>
>Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
>Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
>"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
> position? Is it warranted?
the resolution of the legal aspects is done by the incubator.
why don't restaurants perform their own health inspections?
it's not a radical position. the incubator exists, in part,
to *assure* that all the necesssary steps are taken.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
> Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
> position?
Once legal aspects are resolved, the infrastructure is set up and the
community works you are out of the Incubator anyhow.
The "radical position" is just about getting these done no more, no less.
Please *do* read this page that the Aixon team is filling, it's not a
big hurdle if a project is to become part of Apache.
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/axion.html
I think we have been already very clear on this, so I won't bug you
further with it. I'll just wait it to be done or for pertinent questions.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> The stated purpose of the Logging Services project is the inclusion of
> projects such as log4net, log4php, log4cpp or log4cxx.
Sounds great. Wonderful. That's exactly the kind of thing we all want to
see happen.
> These projects already are open sourced, some even under the Apache
license.
> The various actors are working on the legal aspects. Once that is done,
what
> purpose does it serve to have the projects go through the incubator PMC
and
> then back into LS?
> Maybe I don't understand what the incubator is about but from where I
> stand it looks more like a bureaucratic hurdle rather than a
> service.
That isn't the Incubator's intent, purpose or role. Let me explain, and see
if we can assuage your fears.
As I just replied to you in another message, you start by filling in a
STATUS form, which is a combination checklist and fill-in-the-blanks project
diary, recording when things were completed or happened. If you complete
the STATUS form and there are no issues, then we (collectively known as a
PPMC, consisting of the Incubator PMC, the Logging PMC and the other
Committers on the project) vote for the project to "leave" the Incubator and
join the Logging PMC as an ASF project. If there are unfulfilled issues,
then the PPMC works together to see that they get fulfilled.
> Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
> position? Is it warranted?
As you can see now, I hope, resolving and recording those legal aspects is
one of the major "services" that the Incubator provides, or in this case,
that you do within the Incubator. So there is no "radical position" or
conflict. You are already doing the Incubation of your project. The
Incubator is simply the place where you need to record the progress of that
process.
> I am more than happy to revise my impressions.
I hope this helps.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 09:19 AM 1/12/2004 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> >
> >>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
> >>>to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
> >>
> >>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
> >>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
> >>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#project_XXX_makes_no_mention_of_Inc
> ubator
> >
> > That does not really answer my question. On the contrary, it tends to
> confirm
> > my fears.
>
>what part of 'outside code can *only* come to the asf through the incubator'
>do you find unclear? and what fears are these that you say you have?
The stated purpose of the Logging Services project is the inclusion of
projects such as log4net, log4php, log4cpp or log4cxx. These projects
already are open sourced, some even under the Apache license. The
various actors are working on the legal aspects. Once that is done,
what purpose does it serve to have the projects go through the
incubator PMC and then back into LS? It just doesn't make sense. The
fact that Incubator carries a big stick does not change the logic, or
lack thereof.
Maybe I don't understand what the incubator is about but from where I
stand it looks more like a bureaucratic hurdle rather than a
service. I was trying to understand what the incubator brought to the
table in terms of advantages. Hence my initial question. The responses
I got this far seem to confirm my fears (the incubator being a
hurdle).
I am more than happy to revise my impressions.
>the advantage for log4net if it comes through the incubator is that it
>can become part of the asf. your alternative 'instead of through ls'
>simply isn't an option. so either log4net comes in through the incubator
>on its way to join ls.. or it doesn't become part of the asf *at all*.
Once the legal aspects are resolved, why adopt such a radical
position? Is it warranted?
>--
>#ken P-)}
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
>>>to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
>>
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
>>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#project_XXX_makes_no_mention_of_Incubator
>
> That does not really answer my question. On the contrary, it tends to confirm
> my fears.
what part of 'outside code can *only* come to the asf through the incubator'
do you find unclear? and what fears are these that you say you have?
the advantage for log4net if it comes through the incubator is that it
can become part of the asf. your alternative 'instead of through ls'
simply isn't an option. so either log4net comes in through the incubator
on its way to join ls.. or it doesn't become part of the asf *at all*.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 11:49 AM 1/12/2004 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
>>> to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
>> http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
>> http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#project_XXX_makes_no_mention_of_Incubator
>
> That does not really answer my question. On the contrary, it tends to
> confirm my fears.
You are talking to the Apache Incubator Project: we are here to make
sure that certain things are done. Asking us not to do them is at least
wierd.
We are here because this Project was created by the board to do certain
things, not because we like having to check projects (the
"can_Incubation_be_skipped" faq was written by a board member BTW).
If you have problems with having to go through the Incubator, and don't
understand why a central project clearing house is needed, we cannot be
of help in this, contact the board.
If instead you want to make this transition as fast and seamless as
possible, just ask.
For one, start filling (or make others fill in) in a copy of the
following for each project:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/site/projects/incubation-status-template.cwiki?view=markup
You have karma for it, go ahead. If others want to help you on this,
just tell us, they will get karma too.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 11:49 AM 1/12/2004 +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>...
>> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
>>to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
>
>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
>http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#project_XXX_makes_no_mention_of_Incubator
That does not really answer my question. On the contrary, it tends to confirm
my fears.
>--
>Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>
>> Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison d'être
>> is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that important
>> details have been observed.
>
> Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
> another way if there are appropriate "Less Restrictive Alternatives"
in a word, no. this is how the board has decided to handle this
issue. no project can override the board. only the members may.
and until that happens, things get done the way the board has
decided is policy. period.
unless of course by 'less restrictive alternative' you mean that
they could go elsewhere than they asf. that's always an option.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> > Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison
d'être
> > is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that
important
> > details have been observed.
> Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
> another way if there are appropriate "Less Restrictive Alternatives"
No they cannot. The Incubator is *the* authorized path. If there are "less
restrictive alternatives" that can be adopted, the Incubator has
demonstrated an ability to change.
> When people feel the practice of the legislation would be
> contrary to the "spirit" of the legislation
What practice? Your message talks about legislation, arbitrators, legal
code, and other other things that have no relation to the discussion.
If you take the time to actually look at the Incubation process, you will
see that there is a minimum of rules, and an open community process.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@nifty.com>.
> Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison d'être
> is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that important
> details have been observed.
Yes, I can see this. Also, I am sure that such projects can also choose
another way if there are appropriate "Less Restrictive Alternatives"
(This is a LEGAL term. Ask your friends who are lawyers -- "LRA").
---
When people feel the practice of the legislation would be
contrary to the "spirit" of the legislation, I am sure that arbitrators
can/could choose the "Less Restrictive Alternatives", make such a
legislation change or carry the right to remove executors
from office into effect.
This is how the law codes in the world survive(d).
Again, ask your friends who are lawyers. I am sure that you folks
can find the appropriate way of the practice of the legislation,
in general
Legislation is *for you*, not *for itself*. Put a good interpretation
upon what you can see/perceive. You would be happy as long as
you can find "Less Restrictive Alternatives". Raison d'être of law codes.
-- Oh, this is exactly how i wanted to express my feelings for long --
Happy incubation.
Cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc.
E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org http://www.terra-intl.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> What does it mean exactly for log4net to come through the Incubator?
> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
> to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
code that has existed outside the asf can *only* enter the asf
through the incubator. there is no other option. the incubator
is where the due-diligence of making sure the licence is correct,
the copyright is assigned, and all of the initial developers
submit their clas. among other things.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
> From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
> to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#does_project_X_really_need_Incubation
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#can_Incubation_be_skipped
http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html#project_XXX_makes_no_mention_of_Incubator
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
> something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
> decide.
...
> Whether LS becomes a single integrated community cannot be imposed
> from above. The project needs time to evolve naturally.
Nobody ever said or implied this.
Now, please, let's cut it off with nonsense discussions.
Just follow the status file template points, and basically that's all
there is to it. Fill in a copy of this file for all projects coming in,
it's not that hard.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/site/projects/incubation-status-template.cwiki?view=markup
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: log4net incubation [was:] Granting committer status to
log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 03:25 PM 1/15/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>(about the Incubator)
>>It's a place where the people who specifically volunteered to do this
>>work can do it.
>
>BTW, why are you not using the latest "incubation-status-template.cwiki"
>file as a template? It's the one I have linked to in all my previous mails.
OK. Thanks. I'll use that template.
>--
>Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: log4net incubation [was:] Granting committer status to log4net
developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
(about the Incubator)
> It's a place where the people who specifically
> volunteered to do this work can do it.
BTW, why are you not using the latest "incubation-status-template.cwiki"
file as a template? It's the one I have linked to in all my previous mails.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: log4net incubation [was:] Granting committer status to log4net
developers
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
...
> If I understand correctly, the idea is to have a committee be
> responsible for the "education" of the newcomers, instead of the
> people who specifically volunteered to do this work.
Nope, this is not right. It's a place where the people who specifically
volunteered to do this work can do it. That's why we keep telling you
(the volunteer) to just do it.
No wonder you are confused.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: log4net incubation [was:] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> If I understand correctly, the idea is to have a committee be
> responsible for the "education" of the newcomers, instead of
> the people who specifically volunteered to do this work. I
> wish I had more time to deal with this bureaucracy.
I'm not sure what you mean. What committee and which volunteers? I can't
tell if you mean some nebulous committee somewhere, or what. The Logging
PMC is a committee, too. I expect that you want to, and volunteer to,
educate incoming Committers, right? And the Incubator wants to (quoting
Ken) "ensure that people coming in with a new codebase understand how the
asf works, how the voting model functions, the release process, peer review,
et cetera." So we're all in agreement on the need to educate incoming
Committers during incubation, right?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: log4net incubation [was:] Granting committer status to
log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 06:09 PM 1/14/2004 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> > Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
> > simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they want
> > a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
> > legal impediments to that codebase from entering the ASF, then that
> > should be that...
>
>but that's *not* all it's supposed to be doing. that's the stuff
>it *must* do for the legal well-being of the asf. for the social
>well-being, it also is supposed to ensure that people coming in
>with a new codebase understand how the asf works, how the voting
>model functions, the release process, peer review, et cetera. one
>of the reasons the incubator came into existence was because apparently
>a *lot* of people had become committers withoug any of that ever being
>made clear. ref the 'why the hell should i want to be an asf member'
>discussion last year.
If I understand correctly, the idea is to have a committee be
responsible for the "education" of the newcomers, instead of the
people who specifically volunteered to do this work. I wish I had more
time to deal with this bureaucracy.
>--
>#ken P-)}
>
>Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
>Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
>"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
On Jan 14, 2004, at 6:09 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
>> simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they
>> want
>> a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
>> legal impediments to that codebase from entering the ASF, then that
>> should be that...
>
> but that's *not* all it's supposed to be doing. that's the stuff
> it *must* do for the legal well-being of the asf. for the social
> well-being, it also is supposed to ensure that people coming in
> with a new codebase understand how the asf works, how the voting
> model functions, the release process, peer review, et cetera. one
> of the reasons the incubator came into existence was because apparently
> a *lot* of people had become committers withoug any of that ever being
> made clear. ref the 'why the hell should i want to be an asf member'
> discussion last year.
Community is important.
I think that there are at least two categories of activity that the
Inubator must do :
1) IP Vetting for largish software grants from outside coming into
healthy active PMCs, to make sure that the code is unencumbered and
properly licensed. I think MerlinDeveloper would be such an example?
Or recent additions to Maven?
2) Community establishment for something new, like Geronomio, where you
are bootstrapping a project from the ground up, or when bringing in an
existing community from outside.
I will agree that my comment was poorly placed, thread-wise, as the
thread name has to do w/ what appears to be a #2 situation, bringing in
log4microsoft :). However, my intent was to address issue #1, where it
is possible for incubator just to preform the legal audit functions.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
> simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they want
> a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
> legal impediments to that codebase from entering the ASF, then that
> should be that...
but that's *not* all it's supposed to be doing. that's the stuff
it *must* do for the legal well-being of the asf. for the social
well-being, it also is supposed to ensure that people coming in
with a new codebase understand how the asf works, how the voting
model functions, the release process, peer review, et cetera. one
of the reasons the incubator came into existence was because apparently
a *lot* of people had become committers withoug any of that ever being
made clear. ref the 'why the hell should i want to be an asf member'
discussion last year.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@4quarters.com>.
On Jan 12, 2004, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>> All the developers who have expressed an opinion on the matter so far
>> were inclined to have separate repositories with separate access
>> rights. The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
>> something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
>> decide.
>
> The organization of your TLP is your choice.
>
> I was simply trying to point out an implication as I see it in terms
> of how
> a project's organization can effect Incubation. If a TLP treated
> itself as
> a single project with multiple shared codebases, then it may be easier
> to
> show that a codebase had a larger, more diverse, community than if each
> codebase were treated as a separate community.
Eh. I think community doesn't matter at all when the Incubator is
simply performing accountable legal oversight. If a TLP says they want
a codebase from the outside, and we have determined that there are no
legal impediments to that codebase from entering the ASF, then that
should be that...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> All the developers who have expressed an opinion on the matter so far
> were inclined to have separate repositories with separate access
> rights. The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
> something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
> decide.
The organization of your TLP is your choice.
I was simply trying to point out an implication as I see it in terms of how
a project's organization can effect Incubation. If a TLP treated itself as
a single project with multiple shared codebases, then it may be easier to
show that a codebase had a larger, more diverse, community than if each
codebase were treated as a separate community.
So, how a project is organized could have an impact on how quickly some of
the Incubation items are met. However, this is not imposing a structure
from above. The structure isn't specified in the STATUS file. There is a
description of what is considered important about an ASF community to
provide for the long term viability of a codebase. To pick an extreme case,
one-man codebases are not considered viable.
Incubation is not intended to be difficult. The Incubator's raison d'être
is to make sure that projects are imported, while ensuring that important
details have been observed.
The brief summary is that there is a STATUS form to be filled in, which is a
combination checklist and fill-in-the-blanks project diary of events during
Incubation. There is paper work, e.g., CLAs and/or grants, to have
completed. If there are no unfulfilled issues on the STATUS form, then
things should be fine. If not, then the Incubator works with the project to
help satisfy those things.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 01:18 AM 1/11/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > > Also - is log4net being directly imported or is it going through the
> > > > incubator? My understanding would be the latter given it's bringing
> > > > new developers in, but my guess would be that it would be fairly
> > > > simple if the license issues are simple?
>
> > My understanding is that it would need to go through the incubator as we
> > are bringing new code and new developers into Apache. However I have
> > CCd to general@incubator to get a feeling from the people there as well.
>
>This should come through the Incubator. From what I see on
>log4net.sourceforge.net, it looks good so far, at least assuming that
>Logging project is organizing itself as a single integrated community, so
>that everyone helps out, and we don't have orphaned code concerns.
Noel,
What does it mean exactly for log4net to come through the Incubator?
From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
All the developers who have expressed an opinion on the matter so far
were inclined to have separate repositories with separate access
rights. The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
decide. That is probably something everyone agrees with but it still
deserves to be stated clearly, black on white.
Whether LS becomes a single integrated community cannot be imposed
from above. The project needs time to evolve naturally.
> --- Noel
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 01:18 AM 1/11/2004 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > > Also - is log4net being directly imported or is it going through the
> > > > incubator? My understanding would be the latter given it's bringing
> > > > new developers in, but my guess would be that it would be fairly
> > > > simple if the license issues are simple?
>
> > My understanding is that it would need to go through the incubator as we
> > are bringing new code and new developers into Apache. However I have
> > CCd to general@incubator to get a feeling from the people there as well.
>
>This should come through the Incubator. From what I see on
>log4net.sourceforge.net, it looks good so far, at least assuming that
>Logging project is organizing itself as a single integrated community, so
>that everyone helps out, and we don't have orphaned code concerns.
Noel,
What does it mean exactly for log4net to come through the Incubator?
From what I understand so far, I can't see any advantages for *log4net*
to come through the Incubator instead of LS.
All the developers who have expressed an opinion on the matter so far
were inclined to have separate repositories with separate access
rights. The exact internal organization of the Logging Services is
something that should be left for the Logging Services project to
decide. That is probably something everyone agrees with but it still
deserves to be stated clearly, black on white.
Whether LS becomes a single integrated community cannot be imposed
from above. The project needs time to evolve naturally.
> --- Noel
--
Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
RE: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> > I am inclined to create a new CVS module for log4net and for each
> > sub-project. If a log4-X committer wants to commit a patch to project
> > log4-Y, they can ask to become a log4-Y committer.
> +1.
Doing the above is probably especially appropriate for a project coming to
the Incubator. Ideally, all of your Committers become PMC members in a
timely manner, at which point they would receive (and be expected to use as
normal) karma for all of the Logging project's modules, assuming that they
don't get karma sooner. This is am important consideration, in my opinion
(see below).
> > > Also - is log4net being directly imported or is it going through the
> > > incubator? My understanding would be the latter given it's bringing
> > > new developers in, but my guess would be that it would be fairly
> > > simple if the license issues are simple?
> My understanding is that it would need to go through the incubator as we
> are bringing new code and new developers into Apache. However I have
> CCd to general@incubator to get a feeling from the people there as well.
This should come through the Incubator. From what I see on
log4net.sourceforge.net, it looks good so far, at least assuming that
Logging project is organizing itself as a single integrated community, so
that everyone helps out, and we don't have orphaned code concerns.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org