At 12:01 AM 11/27/2004, Nicko Cadell wrote:
> 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.
Again such low-level technical decisions are ultimately yours to
make. I will help you implement whatever policy log4net committers end
up choosing.
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.
OK, looking forward for an all ASF log4net snapshot. :-)
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?
The last I heard, some remote corners of IBM still used a rogue
pre-ASF version of log4j. However, as far as I am aware, it is
impossible to download a pre-ASF version of log4j from a publicly
available resource. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, the
distribution of the pre-ASF versions of log4j was discontinued almost
immediately after log4j's acceptance at the ASF. At the time there was
no such thing as the incubator, and I sincerely doubt if log4j would
have or could have joined the ASF under the conditions currently in
effect.
> 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
--
Ceki G�lc�
