What you are seeing is exactly what I have been saying. The major problem is that none of the existing logging services committers know how to perform a release. We know there have been fixes committed that are needed. We just don’t know how to make them available. That is exactly why I said your focus should be getting a release built.
Ralph > On Apr 6, 2020, at 10:15 PM, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That sounds promising, and I'm aware that I'm probably being a little > annoying by now, but I've also noticed that the source package is version is > at 2.0.9 where the latest release package version is 2.0.8. That version was > bumped 3 years ago. In between the last release date and last commits are > commits including at least 2 PR merges (42 and 23 ), both of which seen > significant. > > I guess what I'm asking is what's holding up the 2.0.9 release? If I'm to > fork, PR and even if that PR is accepted, how do I avoid the fate of 2.0.9? > > Or is that something I can assist with right now? > > Please understand where I'm coming from: I'd really like to keep log4net > alive, but, like anyone, I have limited time resources, so I'd prefer to > spend that time on tasks with some reasonable probability of success. > > Thanks > -d > > >> On April 6, 2020 23:00:36 Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> No. What I am implying is that you would begin the work necessary to perform >> a release on a fork. When you are ready you would submit a PR and one or >> more of the existing PMC members would review that and merge it. You would >> then collaborate with us to get the release published. >> >> There is a big difference between us reviewing PRs and merging them for >> stuff we know little about vs us providing the karma you will need to >> formally get a release done. >> >> Ralph >> >>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, this would suggest that forking and publishing under a >>> different package name is probably the best idea. There are, as noted >>> before, 34 stagnated pull requests currently at GitHub, many of which >>> haven't seen any attention since 2018. It would seem to be a fool's errand >>> to open a 35th I'm hopes that it would be the one to get attention. >>> If I'm wrong (and I'd love to be) please correct me. >>> -d >>> On April 6, 2020 15:59:26 Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>> The only requirement to become an experienced open source developer is >>>> passion. Open source developers are just people who like to work on code >>>> that everyone can use. That’s it. If you have the time, can help with the >>>> technical problems needed to get the project moving, and can collaborate >>>> with others you have everything you need. >>>> Yes, the code base is still at Github and nothing has been done that can’t >>>> be undone. But for the PMC to move the project out of dormant status you >>>> would first need to demonstrate progress, which might mean collaborating >>>> on a private fork until you are ready to merge it. >>>> Ralph >>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 1:10 AM, Tim Sargent <bentwingedb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> I remember reading the call for .NET devs (a few years back) to help with >>>>> the .NET core version for Log4Net. That's about the time I joined the >>>>> mailing list. >>>>> As I understand it, dormant just means it's no longer being maintained, >>>>> but >>>>> the current version is still available for download and use via NuGet. >>>>> I've toyed with the idea of getting involved in an open source project, >>>>> which is why I originally joined the list. Unfortunately, I don't think I >>>>> have the background in open source projects to be an effective >>>>> contributor, >>>>> let alone sponsor. I'm very experienced in .NET (having been doing it >>>>> since it was in its final preview for 1.0), and I have experience with >>>>> unit >>>>> tests, automated builds and release pipelines (though it's all MS based >>>>> via >>>>> TFS and MSTest). >>>>> Having said that, it sounds like Mr McColl has a strong interest in >>>>> keeping >>>>> it alive, and I'd be happy to offer assistance in any way he finds >>>>> beneficial. >>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:50 AM Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> No one is ever happy moving a project to dormant status. But it is >>>>>> unfair >>>>>> to users to let them think the project is being maintained when the >>>>>> reality >>>>>> is quite different than that. >>>>>> The main issue that needs to be overcome is getting a release out. The >>>>>> ASF >>>>>> has some requirements around releases that have to be met, but that isn’t >>>>>> the hard part. Most users want convenience binaries and no one who is >>>>>> active knows how to do that. There is a documented process in confluence >>>>>> but I have no idea how accurate it is. >>>>>> Once a release is able to be cut getting assistance from others would >>>>>> probably be easier. >>>>>> Also, the ASF infra team really doesn’t care about the status of the >>>>>> project and is not a driving force in this. >>>>>> To be honest, log4cxx was in a similar position. But that project has had >>>>>> a couple of people come forward and are working towards a release. We >>>>>> hope >>>>>> they succeed. >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2020, at 11:56 PM, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>> I'm new to this list, been using log4net for around 9 years, and only >>>>>> this >>>>>>> week discovered that it is being made dormant (and what that means). >>>>>>> I've been told that the team has been looking for outside help for >>>>>> around 2 >>>>>>> years, with no-one forthcoming. Unfortunately, as I say, this is the >>>>>> first >>>>>>> I've heard of it. I'd like to keep log4net alive because it's used >>>>>>> ubiquitously and I think it's a valuable project. >>>>>>> I publish my own nuget packages (https://www.nuget.org/profiles/davydm) >>>>>>> though obviously, not with the same methodologies of the existing >>>>>>> log4net >>>>>>> infrastructure. I see that there's a 2.0.9 release that could >>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>> happen (as per the source), whilst 2.0.8 is still the current release, >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> I'm assuming there's something holding that up. I also see 34 pull >>>>>> requests >>>>>>> on GitHub which are in different states of activity, but many have been >>>>>>> dormant since 2018. >>>>>>> I'd like to help, but I'm not sure where to start with the log4net infra >>>>>> (I >>>>>>> hear there's Jira (I've had little experience) and Jenkins (I've had >>>>>>> reasonable experience, but not with pipelines)). I'm not even sure what >>>>>> the >>>>>>> state of play is for that infra. I'm sure there are good reasons for >>>>>> making >>>>>>> the project dormant -- some of those may include the desire to free up >>>>>>> infra which could be used elsewhere (or just not paid for). >>>>>>> As I say, I'd like to keep log4net alive. I see a few options here: >>>>>>> 1. I learn your infra and your processes. I integrate and try to keep >>>>>>> things pretty-much as they were (though I'm sure some things would have >>>>>> to >>>>>>> change -- all things do). I don't mind spending the time learning the >>>>>>> domain, if that's agreeable to everyone and the project retains it's >>>>>>> original branding and status. One thing I'm concerned about here is the >>>>>>> dormant backlog >>>>>>> 2. As above, with a bit of a clean-slate philosophy: I'd like to remove >>>>>> all >>>>>>> backlog items that aren't critical and start with the least outstanding >>>>>>> stuff possible. If a report is important, it will be reported again. >>>>>> Trying >>>>>>> to trace down the authors and origins of 2+year-old reports is going to >>>>>> be >>>>>>> frustrating. Issues which aren't attended to just become noise in the >>>>>>> backlog, imo. >>>>>>> 3. I fork and perform the "clean slate" approach of above, inviting >>>>>> others >>>>>>> to use my variant and log issues there. Uptake will naturally be slow >>>>>>> (if >>>>>>> even noticeable), which will give me time to deal with incoming issues. >>>>>> On >>>>>>> the other hand, I'd have full control and no need to bother anyone else. >>>>>> I >>>>>>> would have to come up with a new name and make it clear that it's a >>>>>>> fork, >>>>>>> though also make it clear I'd be standing on the shoulders of giants. >>>>>>> Personally, I'd like (1) because it keeps the project that people rely >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> alive. Since I'm new to the mailing list, I can't discern yet the >>>>>> sentiment >>>>>>> towards the project, except that everyone was quite happy to have it >>>>>>> made >>>>>>> dormant, so it feels like there's not a lot of desire to keep it going >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> which is ok: everything comes to an end at some point, and, as stated >>>>>>> earlier, I'm sure there are good reasons for making log4net dormant. As >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> consumer of log4net, I'd much rather not have to switch over to another >>>>>>> framework once there's an issue which affects me more than my logged one >>>>>>> (inability to flush logs -- it was on a proof-of-concept project, so it >>>>>>> isn't _that_ important to have the functionality right now). >>>>>>> Apologies for the rambling message. I was prompted to reach out by Ralph >>>>>>> Goers in the discussion for LOG4NET-606, so I hope I haven't been a >>>>>> bother. >>>>>>> -d >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>>>>>> If you say that getting the money is the most important thing >>>>>>> You will spend your life completely wasting your time >>>>>>> You will be doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>> In order to go on living >>>>>>> That is, to go on doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>> Which is stupid. >>>>>>> - Alan Watts >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY >>>>>>> *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. * >> >> > > >
