On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Stephen Bartnikowski wrote:
Hey Curt,
What's the testing process? How do we the users get involved on that
and
what sort of committment do we need to make?
I think it's important I eke out some testing time out of my
schedule to
help out on that front, since, hey I'm using developer builds of
log4cxx on
FreeBSD, openSUSE, SUSE Enterprise, Fedora, Red Hat Enterprise,
White Box,
and I want to bring it over to Mac OS X Server.
That is a nice set of platforms that compliments the ones that I test
on. I currently test on Ubuntu 6.06 and 7.10 on i386 and x86_64, Mac
OS/X and Win 2K with VC6 and VC7. I've got a Windows Vista x86_64
that I need to get Visual Studio 2008 up and running on to test Win64
builds. All running as VM's under VMWare Fusion. I'd like to have
Solaris using gcc and Sun Studio in my collection of VMs, but
struggled on previous attempts on setting up a Solaris VM in
assembling all the needed software.
As for the voting process, is there a process there too? Do we need to
subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to participate?
The requirements for an Apache release process is described in the
following documents (ordered in most binding to least binding)
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
http://logging.apache.org/guidelines.html
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice
The outline of the process would be that a release candidate is
prepared from a SVN tag and placed at http://people.apache.org/builds
for review and a vote is called on log4cxx-dev and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is open at least 72 hours. The Logging Services Guidelines
prescribe distinct votes by the subproject (log4cxx) and LS PMC, but
those have been held simultaneously in previous log4j releases since
it ends up as two votes by almost the same set of people. LS PMC
members have the only binding votes and at least 3 votes in favor from
PMC members are required. Other voters are desired, but only
advisory. To get that many votes from the PMC will mean convincing
members whose primary interest is log4j, log4net or Chainsaw to cross
lines and vet our release, so the more advisory votes on the release
would allow the PMC members to with confidence focus on just the legal
and procedural requirements. If there is a community in favor of a
release candidate, then working through the procedural and political
issues should be achievable. If there isn't a community, then it is
likely stuck.
On Dec 6, 2007, at 9:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen -
Very good question... I have an offshore dev team who may be able to
throw
in some time testing, assuming there are **documented** tests to
run. They
are definitely not too good on "ad-hoc" style testing.
There are a couple of classes of "testing" that I envisioned:
a) build and unit test testing on different platforms/compiler
combinations
This type of testing would check that log4cxx builds and passes unit
tests on a variety of platforms and compiler variations and that the
INSTALL file properly describes the build process. The ideal persons
for this type of testing have a variety of build platforms already
available and could give a pass/no-pass in just a few minutes.
b) Release reproducibility testing
Confirm that an identical or near identical release can be prepared
from the SVN. For log4j, the release build environment has been a
specific configuration of Ubuntu 6.06-1 and with the exception of
timestamps within the zip files, releases are bit-for-bit identical.
Before I prep a release candidate, I'll confirm that I can repeat it.
It would be good for someone else to confirm that they were also able
to reproduce the release.
c) Unit tests using diagnostic tools
I'll run the unit tests under valgrind before prepping the release
candidate. Anyone who has Purify, BoundsChecker or other tool who
wants to take a spin would be appreciated. Anyone with a real app who
can profile log4cxx would also be appreciated.
d) Application testing
Sanity tests of someone who has an non-trivial app that can report
would be appreciated.
None of these seem like things that could be effectively out-sourced.
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Andrew Phu wrote:
Wow!
I work in a Windows environment. Are there any instructions on build
and test?
Thanks,
An
Check INSTALL and if it leaves any gaps ask on the list. The release
would contain at least VC6 project files produced from Ant+cpptasks,
but for now you have to generate those on your own.
