From general-return-389-apmail-logging-general-archive=logging.apache.org@logging.apache.org Fri Dec 31 14:45:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-logging-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76708 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2004 14:45:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Dec 2004 14:45:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 97890 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2004 14:45:14 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-general-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 97818 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2004 14:45:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: "Logging General" Delivered-To: mailing list general@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 97801 invoked by uid 99); 31 Dec 2004 14:45:13 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from gulcu002.worldcom.ch (HELO mail.qos.ch) (212.74.184.210) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:45:10 -0800 Received: from kal.qos.ch (kal [192.168.1.3]) by mail.qos.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1C11EC073; Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:55:36 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20041231152337.03c3d8a0@mail.qos.ch> X-Sender: ceki@mail.qos.ch (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:05 +0100 To: general@incubator.apache.org From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= Subject: RE: [VOTE] Graduating log4cxx Cc: general@logging.apache.org In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20041228005324.03b01c50@mail.qos.ch> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20041222111738.03dbbbd0@mail.qos.ch> <6.0.3.0.0.20041228005324.03b01c50@mail.qos.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I would like to observe the quality of participation and constructive exchanges on log4cxx-dev@ is high, probably high enough to make most, if not all, ASF members proud. This member certainly is. At this juncture I feel that holding off the graduation of log4cxx would not achieve any useful purpose. Log4cxx presents no IP related problems. It has survived the temporary departure of its founder. It enjoys the involvement of an active, independent and healthy community adhering collaborative and consensual development processes. It has a home within Logging Services project which has voted unanimously, less one abstention, to welcome it. What else could you hope for in an incubated project? Happy new year all, At 01:12 AM 12/28/2004, Ceki G=FClc=FC wrote: >Noel, > >I understand and share your concern but I won't make any empty >promises either. If the current committers to log4cxx leave, the >Logging PMC is unlikely to be able to take over the code. However, >Curt continues his work on stabilizing the code and migrating log4cxx >to APR. Given his productivity, chances are good that he'll do an >excellent job. > >Having worked closely with Curt in the recent past, (he was recently >voted in as a log4j committer), I am quite confident that he'll slowly >build a robust community around log4cxx. > >At 11:57 PM 12/27/2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >>Ceki, >> >>I have reviewed http://incubator.apache.org/projects/log4cxx.html. If the >>Logging PMC is taking responsibility, collectively, for maintaining this >>codebase as part of the overall Logging project, I won't consider the= small >>number of committers worrisome. >> >> --- Noel > --=20 Ceki G=FClc=FC