- I was able to checkout everything except for logging-site.logging-log4j.
It kept saying "Aborted (core dumped)". There was little useful information
in the dump file. I was using the command:
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
- In the log4j repo, the structure looks the same. As Curt mentioned, we
may want to reorganize, but that is a post-svn migration task.
- I was able to build the log4j jars minus slf4j (only b7 is available from
slf4j.org and we require b4). I think I need to get logging-site before I
can do a full distribution build. Just to note, the current head requires
jdk 1.4 to compile.
- I was able to successfully run the tests against the jars I built.
- Is the 1.2 branch available? I want to try a build on that branch.
I'm happy with it so far. Has anyone tried logging-chainsaw or
logging-sandbox? I will dtry sandbox tomorrow night.
Henri, is it possible to put the current sandbox code into a log4j sub dir
or would it just be better if we did that post-migration ourselves?
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Logging General" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/
*************
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/chainsaw/trunk
logging-chainsaw
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4cxx/trunk
logging-log4cxx
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4j/trunk logging-log4j
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/sandbox/trunk
logging-sandbox
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4net/trunk
logging-log4net
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4php/trunk
logging-log4php
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
***************
I haven't done logging-core yet as I'll need to get temporarily added to
the logging PMC to see the files. Also I need to find out where it goes in
the private repository.
Anyway, how does that look?
Email notifications aim to match whatever they were in CVS as trying to
sync the migration with new mailing lists is tricky as it's different
people.
I've just received access to go look on the mail server for these things,
so this'll be the first time in which I'm not going to just go look at
mail-archives and hope to find some cvs commits :)
Hen
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
Henri,
We can try a test migration for the structure you mention. I don't think
we need log4j-attic; it can just be archived. Also, we want to change
logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox. It is going to be a repository
that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental stuff. We may
need to rearrange its contents.
How will checkin emails/notifications work? Is it possible to get
subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will there
be one email list that gets all checkin notifications?
thanks,
-Mark
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Logging General" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
Hi Henri,
We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide
migration. Is that timeframe ok with you?
(Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US
Eastern).
We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the
structure.
What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
logging-chainsaw
logging-core
logging-log4cxx
logging-log4j
logging-log4j-sandbox
logging-log4net
logging-log4php
logging-site
Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
logging
<subproject>
trunk
branches
tags
site
It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves
log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is
log4j-attic wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be
something to archive.
For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and
let you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can
play in .
As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for
the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and isn't
left to each individual subproject.
Hen
