logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Chainsaw releases
Date Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:51:25 GMT

On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:

> Chainsaw is in a bit of a grey area right now with regard to  
> releases - Chainsaw is officially a part of the log4j project, but  
> has its own svn repository.  Chainsaw's in gump, but doesn't have a  
> test module.
>

I'd think it would be helpful to consider chainsaw and log4j as  
distinct products produced by the log4j subproject or the Logging  
Service project.  I don't see anything in the Apache bylaws that say  
each independently distributed package of functionality needs to have  
independent governance.


> I want to make sure we're following the right processes (I feel  
> more than a bit awkward that I brought up tests failing during the  
> latest log4j alpha vote when Chainsaw doesn't event have tests),  
> and I'd like us to discuss what the appropriate release process for  
> Chainsaw looks like.
>
> We create releases that are available via Chainsaw's web page in  
> binary form as a zip of jars, a Web Start link, and a Mac dmg.
>
> The dependencies include:
> - the most recent log4j alpha jars (1.3alpha7 currently)
> - xstream-1.1.2
> - commons-vfs-1.0-rc3
> - commons-logging-api.jar (not sure of version, Paul?)
> - jakarta-oro-2.0.6

Why not jakarta-oro-2.0.8?

>
> What do we agree is the appropriate release process?  Does an alpha  
> log4j release imply a Chainsaw alpha release?

I thought the motivation for spinning Chainsaw out into its own CVS  
module was so that Chainsaw could had a distinct release cycle from  
log4j.  So, I wouldn't think that a log4j release implies a Chainsaw  
release.

> Are they separate votes?

I would think so.

> I would like to see Chainsaw remain a part of the log4j project  
> officially - since Chainsaw has integrated log4j features  
> significantly (loggingevent objects, receiver support).
>


> Also, Paul and myself are the only active committers, which would  
> make votes outside the log4j project problematic without help from  
> the PMC.
>

I've suggested that log4cxx and log4net could be considered products  
of the Logging Services project and dispense with independent  
governance.  Unlike Jakarta (and similar to Xerces), all our products  
address a similar domain with similar architectures but use different  
programming languages.  The opinions of a log4net developer on  
log4cxx code would more weight than opinions of one Jakarta  
subproject developer on another subproject's code.



Mime
View raw message