empire-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Reiher <rei...@esteam.de>
Subject re: ready for release?
Date Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:06:29 GMT
Hi all,
I'm still alive, but I'm very very busy with my diploma thesis at the moment. So there hasn't
been much input from my side...
I checked out the current trunk and I'm quite happy that everything worked like expected (did
it with Eclipse+Subversive+M2Eclipse, all latest stable versions).

I'm gonna check the dev list more frequently and I'm looking forward to releasing a new version
of Empire-db, cause there have been so many cool improvements since the last release.

So far,
Greetings
Joerg

> from: Rainer Döbele [mailto:doebele@esteam.de]
> date: Wednesday, 17. Juni 2009 16:24
> to: empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> subject: ready for release?
> 
> Hi Francis,
> 
> well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it.
> My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for
> every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at
> all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test.
> But it's a personal opinion.
> Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too.
> 
> The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not.
> Is there anything else we can or must supply.
> 
> Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains how
> to build with Maven.
> We could adapt this for our release.
> 
> @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion?
> 
> Regards
> Rainer
> 
> Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > Re: logging of unit tests
> >
> > So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to
> error
> > then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format?
> >
> > But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a file
> > in the target folder instead of console?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<doebele@esteam.de>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Francis,
> > >
> > > thanks a lot.
> > > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set.
> > > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its
> logical.
> > > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a
> properties
> > file.
> > >
> > > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting
> the
> > debug level to FATAL instead of WARN.
> > > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much
> > benefit in having the log output there.
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Rainer
> > >
> > >
> > > Francis De Brabandere wrote:
> > >> Re: revive the release process
> > >>
> > >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default value
> > is
> > >> provided these are no real exceptions.
> > >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN
> > >>
> > >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level
> > and
> > >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j to
> > >> hide the traces
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De
> > >> Brabandere<francisdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hi Rainer,
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer
> Döbele<doebele@esteam.de>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested),
> > >> >>
> > >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently,
> I
> > >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in
> order
> > to
> > >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell all
> > >> required legal documents are there.
> > >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me:
> > >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including
> some
> > >> exceptions.
> > >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are
> > >> confusing.
> > >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running
> the
> > >> unit tests?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me.
> > >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for
> > voting?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >> Rainer
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > http://www.somatik.be
> > >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> http://www.somatik.be
> > >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.somatik.be
> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.

Mime
View raw message