Chainsaw checks out and builds successfully. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 9/20/2005 7:41 PM To: Logging General; Henri Yandell Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN I still cannot check out the logging-site repository. I am going to look at that, logging-sandbox, and logging-chainsaw tomorrow evening.
We need to close the loop on this migration and do the switch. log4net has signed off. I will my final opinion for log4j tomorrow. Curt, have you had a chance to do the log4cxx side? Scott, have you had a chance to look at the chainsaw part? -Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Logging General" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN >- 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > >
<<winmail.dat>>
