On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Scott Deboy wrote:
Chainsaw is in a bit of a grey area right now with regard to
releases - Chainsaw is officially a part of the log4j project, but
has its own svn repository. Chainsaw's in gump, but doesn't have a
test module.
I'd think it would be helpful to consider chainsaw and log4j as
distinct products produced by the log4j subproject or the Logging
Service project. I don't see anything in the Apache bylaws that say
each independently distributed package of functionality needs to have
independent governance.
I want to make sure we're following the right processes (I feel
more than a bit awkward that I brought up tests failing during the
latest log4j alpha vote when Chainsaw doesn't event have tests),
and I'd like us to discuss what the appropriate release process for
Chainsaw looks like.
We create releases that are available via Chainsaw's web page in
binary form as a zip of jars, a Web Start link, and a Mac dmg.
The dependencies include:
- the most recent log4j alpha jars (1.3alpha7 currently)
- xstream-1.1.2
- commons-vfs-1.0-rc3
- commons-logging-api.jar (not sure of version, Paul?)
- jakarta-oro-2.0.6
Why not jakarta-oro-2.0.8?
What do we agree is the appropriate release process? Does an alpha
log4j release imply a Chainsaw alpha release?
I thought the motivation for spinning Chainsaw out into its own CVS
module was so that Chainsaw could had a distinct release cycle from
log4j. So, I wouldn't think that a log4j release implies a Chainsaw
release.
Are they separate votes?
I would think so.
I would like to see Chainsaw remain a part of the log4j project
officially - since Chainsaw has integrated log4j features
significantly (loggingevent objects, receiver support).
Also, Paul and myself are the only active committers, which would
make votes outside the log4j project problematic without help from
the PMC.
I've suggested that log4cxx and log4net could be considered products
of the Logging Services project and dispense with independent
governance. Unlike Jakarta (and similar to Xerces), all our products
address a similar domain with similar architectures but use different
programming languages. The opinions of a log4net developer on
log4cxx code would more weight than opinions of one Jakarta
subproject developer on another subproject's code.
