On 2016-11-05, Joe wrote: >> If you are willing to help, please join log4net's dev mailing list and raise >> your hand. Look through log4net's issue tracker and pick things you'd like >> to work on. If you don't know where to start, please ask, Dominik and Stefan >> will be there to help.
>> If there is anything holding you back from contributing, let's discuss it >> and get it out of the way. > Looking through the log4net issue tracker, I find it difficult to pick > out things to work on. > - There are an awful lot of open issues that have been open for a long > time and are unassigned I've gone through them a long time ago when it looked like we had a plan of moving forward - that's why you may find some issues assigned to versions like 3.5 or 4. Reality has rendered those versions moot. > - Some of the ones I've looked through seem like they could be closed > as Won't fix, Incomplete, Cannot Reproduce, Later or Not a Bug. Doing > this might show that things are moving and be an incentive for people > to get involved. Fine with me. So far I haven't closed any enhancement requests as I thought somebody might pick it up. But at the same time I knew I wouldn't be working on it. I've tried to keep up with real bug reports and enhancement requests that came with a path - but likely failed to do so as well. > - It would help to have a roadmap for the next couple of releases. > For example, if we know that someone is working on a revamped > RollingFileAppender, all issues related to RollingFileAppender should > be assigned to them. The main reason we've lacked a roadmap so far is that we've been reacting to reported bugs. I'd be happy if we could change this. Short term I'd love to see us release 2.0.6 as a sign of life. > - Perhaps some of them need to be reprioritized, so that it's easier > to focus on what is high priority and consistent with the roadmap. Current priorities are most likely the ones set by the reporters. Which usually means everybody considers their issues the most important ones. Stefan
