logging-log4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Womack <mwom...@bevocal.com>
Subject RE: Merging Sandbox -> core
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:15:48 GMT
> >Yes, but I think we had better plan some time and effort for 
> peer review.
> >I'd also like any related test classes to be reviewed to see 
> if they should
> >be extended to test the new changes.
> Excellent points but the files that require review need not 
> be in the sandbox,
> do they?

No, they do not.  I guess I am looking for the fine line.  As you have said
before, the biggest threat to log4j stability is us making changes that have
unforeseen ramifications. Or being stuck with designs we would have changed
if we had thought about it a bit longer.  Given the number of changes that
have just been applied, some time for peer review is in order.

I'm not putting any blame any where.  I have been bad about this, and Paul
and Scott have been pretty much begging for feedback and discussion.  Given
that I have asked for feedback in the past for stuff I have committed, I am
breaking my own rules and guidelines.  I'm going on a vacation end of this
week (for 2 weeks), so I don't know how much time I can devote between now
and then.  But, yes, I am going to be reviewing the changes, with an eye
towards the changes in the "core" classes. (I've had this feeling that the
Socket/SocketNode related classes might need some refactoring, but I need to
think about this some more).

Obviously, test cases in these areas help.  I also want to use the jDiff
tool to track api changes.  I plan to attempt a jDiff report between v1.2.8
and the current cvs in the near future.


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

View raw message