Re: Most stable version of log4cxx?
On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Stephen Bartnikowski wrote: Platforms...I should correct myself. I've got activated, licensed systems running FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, and Mac OS X Server. I have previously used trial versions of SUSE Enterprise and Red Hat Enterprise to make sure my product was compatible with the enterprise editions. The trial licenses have probably expired by now. I've got CentOS 4 and 5 VMs set up from other projects and I think that would be sufficient to have confidence on RHEL. As for my Fedora box, it got cannibalized a few months ago, but the new hardware is sitting in my office waiting to be reinstalled. I know my way around reasonably with Fedora and could get a VM set up with any particular Fedora in a reasonable amount of time. Really, I was just trying to say that my product supports all of those different platforms and that I should invest some time into log4cxx if I want a reliable logging system on all of those platforms. That being said, yes, I am willing to help out as time permits with testing on the platforms I have available: FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, Mac OS X Server, and Fedora, when I revive that machine. Btw Curt, Mac OS X provides some nice profiling tools in the Developer/Applications/Performance Tools folder if you want more options. If we can get the build issues worked out on that platform, it would be pretty easy for me to profile log4cxx in use with an app. I've been using XCode 2.5 (Tiger compatible) on Leopard as my primary dev environment for a while and have done some memory profiling using Shark. I've hacked cpptasks to generate Xcode projects and then needed to make manual changes to get everything running. There are things I'd like to fix in the cpptasks generated projects and need to make some changes so they work with XCode 3.0, but they are usable. I could likely snapshot my project files if that would help you profile your project. I'm expecting to provide XCode project files in the release candidate, hopefully I can write them so they would load in both XCode 2.5 and 3.0 without complaint.
RE: Most stable version of log4cxx?
Platforms...I should correct myself. I've got activated, licensed systems running FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, and Mac OS X Server. I have previously used trial versions of SUSE Enterprise and Red Hat Enterprise to make sure my product was compatible with the enterprise editions. The trial licenses have probably expired by now. As for my Fedora box, it got cannibalized a few months ago, but the new hardware is sitting in my office waiting to be reinstalled. Really, I was just trying to say that my product supports all of those different platforms and that I should invest some time into log4cxx if I want a reliable logging system on all of those platforms. That being said, yes, I am willing to help out as time permits with testing on the platforms I have available: FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, Mac OS X Server, and Fedora, when I revive that machine. Btw Curt, Mac OS X provides some nice profiling tools in the Developer/Applications/Performance Tools folder if you want more options. If we can get the build issues worked out on that platform, it would be pretty easy for me to profile log4cxx in use with an app. So please keep us informed as we're needed. Thanks, Stephen -Original Message- From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:17 PM To: Log4CXX User 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.
Re: Most stable version of log4cxx?
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" To "Log4CXX User" 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 VC
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.
RE: Most stable version of log4cxx?
Wow! I work in a Windows environment. Are there any instructions on build and test? Thanks, An -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:25 AM To: Log4CXX User Subject: RE: Most stable version of log4cxx? 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. Regards, Renny Koshy President & CEO RUBIX Information Technologies, Inc. www.rubixinfotech.com "Stephen Bartnikowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To rkinglizards.com> "'Log4CXX User'" 12/06/2007 09:58 cc AM Subject RE: Most stable version of log4cxx? Please respond to "Log4CXX User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ging.apache.org> 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. As for the voting process, is there a process there too? Do we need to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to participate? Thanks for the update! - Stephen -Original Message- From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:27 PM To: Log4CXX User Subject: Re: Most stable version of log4cxx? On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know... I wish I could personally contribute time/energy/ > resources... > during the project in question we actually hired both omniEvents > developers full time to 'help out'... but am not in a position right > now. > > Would putting a "bounty" on it incentivise anyone to help? > > Renny Koshy > President & CEO > I think we are close enough that getting a new developer ramped up would likely delay things unless someone wants to take on the ODBC/ DBAppender in the next week or so. However, having a configure/ autotools guru on call could be helpful. Andreas Fester has done that role in the past and I was planning on nagging him when doing the release candidate preparation. Testers checking various build platforms and testing with apps that use log4cxx 0.9.7 however would be very helpful and timely votes on any release candidates would be essential to encouraging the LS PMC to support the release.
RE: Most stable version of log4cxx?
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. Regards, Renny Koshy President & CEO RUBIX Information Technologies, Inc. www.rubixinfotech.com "Stephen Bartnikowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To rkinglizards.com> "'Log4CXX User'" 12/06/2007 09:58 cc AM Subject RE: Most stable version of log4cxx? Please respond to "Log4CXX User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ging.apache.org> 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. As for the voting process, is there a process there too? Do we need to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to participate? Thanks for the update! - Stephen -Original Message- From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:27 PM To: Log4CXX User Subject: Re: Most stable version of log4cxx? On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know... I wish I could personally contribute time/energy/ > resources... > during the project in question we actually hired both omniEvents > developers full time to 'help out'... but am not in a position right > now. > > Would putting a "bounty" on it incentivise anyone to help? > > Renny Koshy > President & CEO > I think we are close enough that getting a new developer ramped up would likely delay things unless someone wants to take on the ODBC/ DBAppender in the next week or so. However, having a configure/ autotools guru on call could be helpful. Andreas Fester has done that role in the past and I was planning on nagging him when doing the release candidate preparation. Testers checking various build platforms and testing with apps that use log4cxx 0.9.7 however would be very helpful and timely votes on any release candidates would be essential to encouraging the LS PMC to support the release.
RE: Most stable version of log4cxx?
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. As for the voting process, is there a process there too? Do we need to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to participate? Thanks for the update! - Stephen -Original Message- From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:27 PM To: Log4CXX User Subject: Re: Most stable version of log4cxx? On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I know... I wish I could personally contribute time/energy/ > resources... > during the project in question we actually hired both omniEvents > developers full time to 'help out'... but am not in a position right > now. > > Would putting a "bounty" on it incentivise anyone to help? > > Renny Koshy > President & CEO > I think we are close enough that getting a new developer ramped up would likely delay things unless someone wants to take on the ODBC/ DBAppender in the next week or so. However, having a configure/ autotools guru on call could be helpful. Andreas Fester has done that role in the past and I was planning on nagging him when doing the release candidate preparation. Testers checking various build platforms and testing with apps that use log4cxx 0.9.7 however would be very helpful and timely votes on any release candidates would be essential to encouraging the LS PMC to support the release.
