Hi all, I'm still alive, but I'm very very busy with my diploma thesis at the moment. So there hasn't been much input from my side... I checked out the current trunk and I'm quite happy that everything worked like expected (did it with Eclipse+Subversive+M2Eclipse, all latest stable versions).
I'm gonna check the dev list more frequently and I'm looking forward to releasing a new version of Empire-db, cause there have been so many cool improvements since the last release. So far, Greetings Joerg > from: Rainer Döbele [mailto:[email protected]] > date: Wednesday, 17. Juni 2009 16:24 > to: [email protected] > subject: ready for release? > > 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.
