logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Womack" <mwom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduation of log4cxx and log4net
Date Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:06:20 GMT
Curt, thanks for the review.

What does "APR" mean?

-Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@apache.org>
To: <general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Graduation of log4cxx and log4net


It would be good to review whether the project's meet the exit criteria
listed in
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Exit+Requirements.  I'll take a stab for
log4cxx:


>
> Minimum Exit Requirements
>
> Prior to escalation to the ASF, a Podling needs to show that :
> • it is a worthy and healthy project;
> • it truly fits within the ASF framework;and
> • it "gets" the Apache Way.

I think those statements are true for log4cxx

>
>  This is achieved by imposing a set of Exit Criteria that, when met,  will 
> demonstrate these objectives.
>
>  Therefore, to successfully exit the Incubator and be escalated fully 
> into the ASF, a Podling SHALL meet the minimum exit requirements  detailed 
> below. The Incubator PMC MAY set additional requirements at  their 
> discretion. Such additional requirements MAY be proposed by the  Mentor or 
> the Sponsor, however only the Incubator PMC is authorised to  formally 
> place such requirements on a Podling.
>
>  The minimum requirements that a Podling SHALL meet prior to being 
> successfully escalated to the ASF are :
> • Legal
> ◦ All code ASL'ed

Yes

> ◦ No non ASL or ASL compatbile dependencies in the code base

log4cxx currently has dependencies on libxml2 and MSXML to support XML
configuration files.  This is reported as
http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-35.  The planned resolution
is to use Apache Portable Runtime's XML support.


> ◦ License grant complate
> ◦ CLAs on file.
> ◦ Check of project name for trademark issues

I assume all these were done on the way into the incubator.

> • Meritocracy / Community
> ◦ Demonstrate an active and diverse development community
> ◦ The project is not highly dependent on any single contributor  (there's 
> at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no  single company 
> or entity that is vital to the success of the project)

I think the recent log4cxx mailing list activity indicates that their
is an active and diverse user community.

There are 3 legally independent committers to log4cxx, however Michaël
CATANZARITI has stated that he will not be actively participating for
almost a year.  There have been some submitted patches and some offers
of development assistance, but I don't have a name that I would
consider the next to put up for committer status based on a history of
submissions.  It might be good to consider adding log4j or log4net
committers to log4cxx and vice-versa.

> ◦ The above implies that new committers are admitted according to  ASF 
> practices

I think Ceki intervened when I was put up for committer status since
the voting was being done in the wrong place, but I think the intent
was right.

> ◦ ASF style voting has been adopted and is standard practice
> ◦ Demonstrate ability to tolerate and resolve conflict within the 
> community.
> ◦ Release plans are developed and excuted in public by the  community.
> ▪ (requriment on minimum number of such releases?)
> ▪ Note: incubator projects are not permitted to issue an official 
> Release. Test snapshots (however good the quality) and Release  plans  are 
> OK.

Plans and votes for the upcoming 0.9.8 "snapshot" were held and the
migration to APR where held on the dev mailing list and I believe
support these statements.


> ◦ Engagement by the incubated community with the other ASF  communities, 
> particularly infrastructure@ (this reflects my personal  bias that 
> projects should pay an nfrastructure "tax").

This is questionable.  Where do I send my estimated infrastructure tax?
  I haven't seen other ASF communities persuing log4cxx and we are just
migrating to APR, so haven't had much involvement with them.

> ◦ Incubator PMC has voted for graduation

I assume this has no happened.

> ◦ Destination PMC, or ASF Board for a TLP, has voted for final  acceptance

I assume this is in progress

> • Alignment / Synergy
> ◦ Use of other ASF subprojects

log4cxx is migrating to from its own platform abstraction layer to APR.

> ◦ Develop synergistic relationship with other ASF subprojects
> • Infrastructure
> ◦ CVS module has been created

Yes, though should we consider switching to SVN before graduating?

> ◦ Mailing list(s) have been created
> ◦ Mailing lists are being archived

Yes to both

> ◦ Bugzilla has been created

Jira with 40+ bugs logged.

> ◦ Project website has been created

Yes

> ◦ Project ready to comply with ASF mirroring guidlines

Not sure what this means.

> ◦ Project is integrated with GUMP if appropriate

There is an Ant build and test script for log4cxx, so it would be
possible to be the first c++ project integrated with GUMP

> ◦ Releases are PGP signed by a member of the community
> ◦ Developers tied into ASF PGP web of trust


I don't have a PGP signature that would meet this criteria.




Mime
View raw message