commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] tests
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:11:19 GMT
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 22:13 +0200, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Hi Simon,
> Simon Kitching wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 02:47 +0200, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
> > 
> >>As I have checked with offical releases ant seems
> >>to be the master and maven is just there for other reasons (maybe the site
> >>generation).
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, this is the case. 
> > 
> > Up until now, commons-logging has always been built with Ant, with Maven
> > just used for the website.

it's actually worse than this: all the releases that i've cut have
needed to be adjusted manually. this isn't good.

> >>For me the question is:
> >>Is the API-jar build in maven.xml just legacy and can be kicked out?
> >>Or on the other hand has someone evaluated if the test issue can be solved with
> >>a recent maven version and the ant can be replaced and kicked out?
> > 
> > 
> > As you may have seen, the way unit testing is done has undergone a
> > radical revision (by me). It was extremely convoluted before, and is
> > hopefully now saner. I hoped that one of the outcomes was to be able to
> > build/test from maven, but the log4j incompatibility issues then blew
> > that goal out of the water again.

the unit tests are *much* better now
> > And unfortunately 2 months ago I ran out of time for working on
> > commons-logging (combination of new relationship and new job; need 25
> > hours in the day *without* any open-source work!).
> Thanks for making this clear.

> > If you think you can get this application building with Maven, then
> > please have a go. It will be a challenge.
> We'll the only idea I have right now is to add (fictive) subprojects for the two
> log4j versions. That might be an easy solution. 

we've discussed aggressively splitting JCL into separate builds before.
there are significant disadvantages but also advantages. 

> My time is also very
> limitted, but I will give it a try to play around and we'll see.

i'm a little intrigued by the idea of fictive subprojects and look
forward to seeing the results. 

> Anyways I hope there is anybody left from commons-logging for my
> "getChildLogger" proposal. I am very keen on that.
> If someone would have a look at it and let me know what else to do to make it
> happen to be committed, I would be very pleased.
> I already added a test for the new Logger features within the patch.
> I would write additional information and potential FAQ entries.
> But at the current moment I get very few feedback at all about what I want and
> think. So I do not have a clue if my patch will be accepted.

thanks for your patience. i'll try to take a look at the patch this

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message