On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Rhys Ulerich <rhys.uler...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Given that log4cxx seems to be stalled, why don't you fork it? > > The Apache infrastructure already in place for log4cxx is excellent > Forking it would be a damned shame as we'd lose that. > Plus forking is appropriate when there's a difference of vision, > design, or licensing. None apply here. Increasing the number of > committers/maintainers is a much better option, IMHO. > > On possible way forward (with the hopes that the developers are > lurking and might bless the idea)... > > How about the community plans two minor dot releases? For 0.11.0 > maybe two or three new committers comb the issue tracker for bugfix > patches, apply them, and release. The current maintainers oversee the > 0.11.0 release. For 0.12.0 maybe those new committers solicit and > review patches from folks like Darko who hasn't prepared them because > he was dissuaded by log4xx's inactivity. Get one of the new > committers to run the 0.12.0 release process with the current > maintainer's oversight. After 0.12.0 the maintainers decide if they > want to transfer over to new folks or if they want to stay involved. > > - Rhys > Your proposal would work if new committers are accepted. I don't know the ASF, but I wouldn't accept a new committer unless I'm sure the guy deserves it. That's why I proposed the fork: it's immediate (you can release the first version tomorrow) and it's useful as a playground for potential new committers. -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
