logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Womack" <mwom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.3-alpha-9 build
Date Fri, 03 Mar 2006 01:02:55 GMT
A -1 before I even to do the build.  :-)

I'm fine with not doing the build.  I'll spend my time this evening
doing more cleanup and tests.  That makes the next planned build the
one at the end of this month.

I changed the watchdog tests to output the (hopefully) relevant output
to the console so we can track down the issue (after I fix the build
stuff so gump doesn't fail).

I can pull out the Version stuff.  The Package stuff looks more
promising and it appears it has been in the jdk since at least 1.3. 
Well, it was fun to write some new code, even if it gets tossed.  Woo


On 3/2/06, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Mark Womack wrote:
> > I will be doing the build tomorrow night (3/2).  If you have any
> > checkins or updates to the HISTORY.txt, please get them in before
> > 6pm US Pacific time.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Mark
> I saw that the Version class and versionInfo was added and it seems
> undesirable to me as it breaks with Java platform conventions.  I'll
> add comments to the associated bug, but I think the right approach
> would be to bring us closer to traditional Java version branding.  It
> has only been in the SVN for hours and haven't been engaged on the
> issue, but it seems one that I would either -0 or -1 a release with
> it in.  I would suggest rolling back the Version stuff for now.
> As far as I know the watchdog tests are still failing on the Gump
> machine frequently.  It seemed bad enough to put out one release
> while Gump was failing but two seems a bit much.
> The hyphens in the version designation in the jar and package names
> confuse Maven, however calling it 1.3alpha9 or 1.3.alpha9 would avoid
> the problem.
> There were a couple of reports of known compatibility issues that had
> not been addressed, particularly subclassing of PatternLayout,
> o.a.l.RollingFileAppender, o.a.l.DailyRollingFileAppender, and
> DOMConfigurator.  For each of the classes, the current implementation
> is substantially different and previous extension points are no
> longer available.  These were reported as compatibility issues in the
> compatibility report, but that they were independently reported by
> others from their testing suggests that they are not dismissible.
> I don't think that it is desirable to release another alpha at this
> point.  In my mind an alpha is an implicit request for feedback from
> a larger community and that we have not addressed the feedback from
> alpha8 at all, I don't think it is desirable to put out an alpha9 at
> this time.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

View raw message