> Indeed, I am certain that all those involved appreciate your > frankness. At this stage, in order to build a wider > community, my advice to you would be actively seek ways in > which to enlarge your committer base. On way to get there, > is to grant committer status to > those developers who show that they have got a clue. Note that I am > not suggesting to get nonchalant about it, but only > slightly less conservative. It boils down to keeping the > clueless out and giving those who show promise a chance. > Compare this with the HTTPD project > which is reputed to grant comittership status only to those > contributors who show consistent and real committment to the > project, say for at least 6 months.
So long as we can maintain quality then the more committers the better. I will shake the tree and see who falls out. > Regarding to jira/bugzilla or not to jira/bugzilla question, > I believe that the decision regarding such a technical > matter is best left to the people actually doing the work. > I am fairly confident that the Board would sustain this > view, if it ever came to that. I haven't used jira at all, but it sounds like jira may be a good fit. I will investigate the log4cxx jira. > Keep in mind that there must be a convenient way for > contributors to submit patches. The log4net@ lists > apparently strip attachments; not your fault but mine. The lists allow plain text attachments but strip binaries including ZIPs. This, I think, is a good thing. > Having > contributors post their patches at SF does not come through > very well. You should consider completing your migration > away from SourceForge. The mailing lists should be closed > down, for example by refusing new posts and new > subscriptions. Remove all file releases at SF. (Even under > incubation, you can distribute a "snapshot" release here at > Apache.) Close down the bug tracking system, the CVS > repository, etc. In short, there should be nothing left > at http://sourceforge.net/projects/log4net/ except pointers > to http://l.a.o/log4net/. The sourceforge lists require moderator approval and now have almost no traffic (apart from spam ;) I should probably close them up now. The SF site is only used to provide the downloads of the old versions of log4net. We are planning our first release from the apache codebase (ensuring the documentation is in sync with the code is the main remaining item) and when that happens we will certainly not continue to link to the SF site. I am slightly wary about eradicating the old versions entirely. I know they can't be served by apache. Is it still possible to download a version of log4j that is pre-Apache? > Given that you have the formal backing of this PMC, I > think we can submit our proposal to graduate log4net as > soon as it becomes a no brainier case. I expect we can reach > that stage by early next year. Sounds good to me. Thanks for your support. ------------ Nicko Cadell log4net development http://logging.apache.org/log4net
