logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Womack" <mwom...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release log4j-1.3a8 official
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:41:00 GMT
So, you are +1 then?  :-)

On 2/1/06, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Mark Womack wrote:
> > Well, it is a good nit.  This particular test doesn't always fail
> > though.  Locally on my machine it failed once, and after looking at
> > the code, I ran it again and it worked.  My guess is that it has
> > something to do with the copying of the config file not changing the
> > date so that the watchdog triggers or conceiveably a bug in the
> > FileWatchdog code someplace.
> >
> > There is something similar that I have mentioned related to the
> > TimeBasedRolling scheme as well, though it does not seem to show up in
> > the Gump radar.  I get it fairly often locally.
> >
> > -Mark
> Gump is not consistently failing, but it isn't a desirable practice
> to be issuing releases while Gump is failing or immediately after
> Gump starts passing.  The test was recently added at which time they
> would pass on Windows but fail on most Unix platforms.  I modified
> them to get them to pass consistently on my boxes and apparently pass
> inconsistently on Gump.   I do not think it reflects a regression in
> the code base, but either the fragility of the test or a bug that has
> been latent in the code for some time.
> Omitting the test would not change the distribution since the unit
> tests are not included.  It would only silence Gump from reminding us
> that we have either a fragile test or a latent bug.  I think
> releasing an alpha under these conditions, while undesirable, is
> acceptable.

View raw message