Ok that building.txt is kind of like our readme we also need some release task list and I need to look into releasing using meven on the apache infrastructure. I know they have a staging repository but I'm not sure incubator projects can use it.
Would it be hard to have a wiki set up for our project? Or is that planned for after incubation? On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Francis De Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow. > > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not > that I'm against hiding the logging either > > Francis > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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<[email protected]> >>> 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<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > Hi Rainer, >>> >> > >>> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> >>> >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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.
