On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:32 AM Rhys Ulerich <rhys.uler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It doesn't look like there's other members still around.... > > I'm still lurking but have not touched the code for awhile. > > It is, and has been, unclear what needs to happen for a 0.11.0 release > candidate [1]. Much of the problem is that there's no concensus on what > build system should work. Autotools, Maven, and some collection of Windows > IDE projects all exist in various states. Many user questions involve the > latter, which Thorsten fields impressively well. > > The remainder of the release - readiness concerns voiced since incubation > involve Windows thread safely to which I cannot speak. Again, Thorsten > fields these and has nudged the code forward as he has been able. > I dunno - its been too long since I've had to deal with C/C++. The ASF looks for a release of source code, convenience binaries are not required. If your main issue is a build system, I would include the ability to run all three you've listed (if possible - though it should be) allowing users to compile themselves. Your lack of mentors is probably the biggest issue on the incubator side. Without mentors, you have no one to steer you through graduation. Though Marvin raises a good point - you're coming from an existing TLP, not only would incubation be optional if the logging TLP chose to bring you in, but having the backing of logging likely means there are other existing members out there that can help you through incubation. > I believe we can get a release out if we can decide on what it must > contain, and how it must build. Following APR on a build process would be > ideal but I have not been able to glean which build system(s?) of theirs > they consider blessed. > > - Rhys > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-log4cxx-dev/201410.mbox/ > <CAKDqugR-iVw2j1SuufSrPiiPAVbBWdsVXyN%2BuT%3D7x8461-ewkA%40mail.gmail.com> >
