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 03:40:35 GMT
Very cool.  I see why this is a good thing then.

Thanks, Nicko.

-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nicko Cadell" <nicko@neoworks.com>
To: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Graduation of log4cxx and log4net


>
>> What does "APR" mean?
>>
>> -Mark
>
> http://apr.apache.org/
>
>
>
>> ----- 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