Vladimir, There is a vote thread in progress ( https://lists.apache.org/thread/0rk0nr0pv9p2945jsrs9pp2ys57wksn3). You and I both voted on that thread. Looking at the number of +1 votes on that voting thread, surely you can see that this repo will be created, and not only that, it will be created *exactly the way you asked for*. As far as I can see, there is no missing bit any more.
So, maybe I am missing something, but I cannot see the point of your message to Christian. Why use harsh words to push for something that is already happening? Personally I enjoy being on the Logging PMC because we have a nice community where people really listen and are careful how they phrase things. I think we truly try to embody Apache's code of conduct <https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html> as well as the participation guidelines <https://community.apache.org/contributors/etiquette> in all our communications. We are all only human, doing the best we can. Let's be kind to each other. Remko On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:30 PM Vladimir Sitnikov < sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Christian>Here is some more information on how we develop software: > > Christian, I'm a member of PMC in Apache JMeter and Apache Calcite, ok? > > >as a community, need to find consensus first > > Could you please stop going in circles and just agree to open apache/log4j > Git for writes? > Are there another viable alternatives? > > 14 December I suggest shipping 1.2.18 > 16 December I started "[VOTE] Move log4j 1.x from SVN to Git, use the > current apache/log4j mirror" > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ssbdg44gy7txzl16xxd097t7orco52g2 > ^^ this is exactly to gather PMC consensus on proceeding the work on log4j > 1.x in apache/log4j git repo. > As it turns out later, the email consensus on opening Git for writes was > absolutely needed. > ....lots of mails... > 21 December Remko says "migration to Git will happen" > https://lists.apache.org/thread/y463on8fbvkkc0k0wpzo68ywmogg6327 > Then, out of a sudden Ralph creates a new Git repo instead of continuing in > the initially requested one. > > 23 December I create INFRA-22654 so Logging PMC understands that > the only missing bit is their consensus on reopening apache/log4j > > Note, that INFRA says they can easily reopen apache/log4j, and the only > missing bit > is exactly the one I asked 16 December. > > Vladimir >
