logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: log4cx: attic or incubation?
Date Sat, 04 May 2013 17:45:01 GMT
Hi,

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> The attic step seems like potentially unnecessary work.
>
> If the project is being used but not developed actively, that's fine. It is
> still an asset.
>
> I thought Apache already had a process by which a project can be mirrored
> with Git?
>
> You can then process pull requests as you would with any Git repo.
>
> It might be that the project as is is doing it's job in a manner that
> satisfies its users, without further tweaking ;)

Definitely an interesting idea. Just want to mention, it was the Board
which has asked me.
So far I can't judge on the incoming patches; I have no clue on c++
nor do I plan to build up the skills.
I thought this would maybe not be enough to make changes in an ASF
repository. I have applied a few
patches recently but it made me a bit uncomfortable.

In addition, we wouldn't have an PMC member which actually would
oversee the incoming patches. And who is actually supposed to vote on
it?

That said it is unlikely that we can make up a community again.

As I understood it, this is when the attic comes into play. Unused
repositories which do not get any maintenance. They are still readable
though and can be used.

Anyway, creating a GIt mirror for log4cxx sounds reasonable despite
all concerns. It is a small, first step. We can then see what happens.
Maybe when I find some time I will have a chat with the attic people.
Actually I am also a bit afraid before the extra work without real
benefit.

Thanks!
Christian



> Gary
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Most of them
>> > said they might apply a couple of patches here and there, but nobody
>> > burst out in emotions saying, YAY, this is it.
>>
>> The library is, more or less, stable and feature complete.  There's
>> not much shepherding to be done in terms of driving the functionality
>> in some particular direction.  That is, unless there's some burning
>> feature set that folks need that hasn't been discussed on the log4cxx
>> mailing list in the years that I have been lurking.  The problem seems
>> to be that the overhead of contributing small fixes is off-puttingly
>> high.  It's hard to elicit a YAY from anyone under these
>> circumstances.
>>
>> > For now I would like to propose that I am cloning log4cxx to my GitHub
>> > account and move the svn repos to the attic. That way I can overlook
>> > if there is a team growing around log4cxx or not. Also I can ask for
>> > ICLAs before accepting pull requests, which should help when we go
>> > back to incubation. If there is, we can go back to incubation at any
>> > time. If there is not, then well, no harm done.
>> >
>> > Comments?
>>
>> I like this approach.
>>
>> I would ask that, before you do this, you please make one last 10.2
>> release off the Apache-blessed sources.  Trunk differs in slight but
>> important ways from 10.1 (e.g., it builds).  This way the distro
>> package managers can at least get one last blessed version into their
>> pipelines before the log4cxx community goes off and experiments with a
>> reboot.
>>
>> - Rhys
>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory



--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de

Mime
View raw message