logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Womack" <mwom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:29:51 GMT
- I was able to checkout everything except for logging-site.logging-log4j. 
It kept saying "Aborted (core dumped)".  There was little useful information 
in the dump file.  I was using the command:

svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site

- In the log4j repo, the structure looks the same.  As Curt mentioned, we 
may want to reorganize, but that is a post-svn migration task.

- I was able to build the log4j jars minus slf4j (only b7 is available from 
slf4j.org and we require b4).  I think I need to get logging-site before I 
can do a full distribution build.  Just to note, the current head requires 
jdk 1.4 to compile.

- I was able to successfully run the tests against the jars I built.

- Is the 1.2 branch available?  I want to try a build on that branch.

I'm happy with it so far.  Has anyone tried logging-chainsaw or 
logging-sandbox?  I will dtry sandbox tomorrow night.

Henri, is it possible to put the current sandbox code into a log4j sub dir 
or would it just be better if we did that post-migration ourselves?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
To: "Mark Womack" <mwomack@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN

> http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/
> *************
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/chainsaw/trunk 
> logging-chainsaw
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4cxx/trunk 
> logging-log4cxx
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4j/trunk logging-log4j
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/sandbox/trunk 
> logging-sandbox
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4net/trunk 
> logging-log4net
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4php/trunk 
> logging-log4php
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
> ***************
> I haven't done logging-core yet as I'll need to get temporarily added to 
> the logging PMC to see the files. Also I need to find out where it goes in 
> the private repository.
> Anyway, how does that look?
> Email notifications aim to match whatever they were in CVS as trying to 
> sync the migration with new mailing lists is tricky as it's different 
> people.
> I've just received access to go look on the mail server for these things, 
> so this'll be the first time in which I'm not going to just go look at 
> mail-archives and hope to find some cvs commits :)
> Hen
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>> Henri,
>> We can try a test migration for the structure you mention.  I don't think 
>> we need log4j-attic; it can just be archived.  Also, we want to change 
>> logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox.  It is going to be a repository 
>> that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental stuff.  We may 
>> need to rearrange its contents.
>> How will checkin emails/notifications work?  Is it possible to get 
>> subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will there 
>> be one email list that gets all checkin notifications?
>> thanks,
>> -Mark
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
>> To: "Mark Womack" <mwomack@apache.org>
>> Cc: "Logging General" <general@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>>>> Hi Henri,
>>>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn. 
>>>> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide 
>>>> migration. Is that timeframe ok with you?
>>> (Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US 
>>> Eastern).
>>> We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the 
>>> structure.
>>>> What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
>>> Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
>>> logging-chainsaw
>>> logging-core
>>> logging-log4cxx
>>> logging-log4j
>>> logging-log4j-sandbox
>>> logging-log4net
>>> logging-log4php
>>> logging-site
>>> Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
>>> logging
>>>   <subproject>
>>>     trunk
>>>     branches
>>>     tags
>>>   site
>>> It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves 
>>> log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is 
>>> log4j-attic wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be 
>>> something to archive.
>>> For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and 
>>> let you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
>>>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a 
>>>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can 
>>>> play in .
>>> As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for 
>>> the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and isn't 
>>> left to each individual subproject.
>>> Hen

View raw message