Curt - We are primarily a Solaris shop... so we have Solaris 8 & 10 servers we can test on. We also have Linux (RHES4) systems. Renny Koshy President & CEO
-------------------------------------------- RUBIX Information Technologies, Inc. www.rubixinfotech.com Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/06/2007 01:16 PM Please respond to "Log4CXX User" <log4cxx-user@logging.apache.org> To "Log4CXX User" <log4cxx-user@logging.apache.org> cc Subject Re: Most stable version of log4cxx? 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.
