logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release log4j-1.3a8 official
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:16:17 GMT

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.

Mime
View raw message