RE: 1.2.11rc1 Build

At 12:37 PM 5/23/2005 -0700, you wrote: > >- The tar error when unpacking. I updated to Ant 1.6.4 for the next build. >It should be resolved with that. I'm using Ant-1.6.4 on WinXP SP2 and I don't know about unpacking, but when I run the "dist" target (against the HEAD) and Ant attempts to gene

cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml

hoju2005/05/23 23:33:19 Modified:.build.xml Log: get rid of unnecessarily verbose warning from the task about filenames longer than 100 characters only being compatible with GNU compatible TAR commands. I simply set and all is quiet. Jake Revision Changes

cvs commit: logging-log4j/tests/src/java/org/apache/log4j/pattern PatternParserTest.java

hoju2005/05/23 23:07:45 Modified:src/java/org/apache/log4j PatternLayout.java PropertyConfigurator.java src/java/org/apache/log4j/filter ReflectionFilter.java src/java/org/apache/log4j/helpers OptionConverter.java

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j INSTALL

Like most java appilicatios today, log4j relies on ANT as its build -tool. ANT is availale from "http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/";. ANT +tool. ANT is availale from "http://ant.apache.org/";. ANT While you are at it: s/applicatios/applications/ s/availale/available/ -

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j/tests/src/java/org/apache/log4j/rolling/helper CompressTestCase.java FileNamePatternTestCase.java

On May 23, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Paul Smith wrote: August! Probably why I don't remember it. I don't remember last week as it is... :) I love the idea of Asnyc roll/compress, as the mail thread pointed out, a system can be blocking quite a while if the log file is being compressed in a sync

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34491] - Missing include in build.jms target results in missing class in log4j jar

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35032] - Blocking issues for log4j 1.2.11 release

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

cvs commit: logging-log4j INSTALL

mwomack 2005/05/23 22:19:33 Modified:.Tag: v1_2-branch INSTALL Log: Fix for #35032, issue #2. Revision ChangesPath No revision No revision 1.19.2.3 +4 -4 logging-log4j/Attic/INSTALL Index: INSTALL ==

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j/tests/src/java/org/apache/log4j/rolling/helper CompressTestCase.java FileNamePatternTestCase.java

I don't recall (emphasis on recall) seeing anything about async'ing the compression. Can you provide me some links to refresh my memory? I think this is a good idea, it's just a reasonable chunk of work, and async stuff can be complicated. After completing the refactoring of t

Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j/tests/src/java/org/apache/log4j/rolling/helper CompressTestCase.java FileNamePatternTestCase.java

On May 23, 2005, at 6:58 PM, Paul Smith wrote: Hi Curt, I'm just looking at bug 34979, and it says "...suggested during the port of those classes to log4jcxx'. Sorry, that was a little cryptic. Porting the log4j 1.3 RollingFileAppender framework to log4cxx (http://issues.apache.org/ j

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34979] - org.apache.log4j.rolling refactoring

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

RE: 1.2.11rc1 Build

Hi, > And the source headers still reference the 1.1 license. If we update the > license, we will need to update all the source headers. I don't know the > answer here. Ceki, Yoav, do you know the policy regarding the updating of > the license with releases like this? I guess we can always ask

RE: 1.2.11rc1 Build

> Initial scan that I've found are (and these are probably just left > over stuff from 1.2.8/9 release) > > * LICENSE.txt is 1.1 License. Do we need to update that to 2.0? And the source headers still reference the 1.1 license. If we update the license, we will need to update all the source hea

RE: JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market)

OK. I'll give it another dive. Thanks. -Mark > -Original Message- > From: Yoav Shapira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 11:10 AM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market) > > Hi, > > > Yeah, and I think tha

RE: JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market)

Hi, > Yeah, and I think that is the reason I did not seriously join the > discussion > last time. There is a lot of other stuff going across that mailing list; > more than I can filter through effectively. I don't know if it is > warranted, but other commons projects have their own mailing lists

RE: JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market)

Yeah, and I think that is the reason I did not seriously join the discussion last time. There is a lot of other stuff going across that mailing list; more than I can filter through effectively. I don't know if it is warranted, but other commons projects have their own mailing lists...maybe jcl sh

RE: JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market)

Hi, > Is there a JCL mailing list? I looked at the jakarta mailing list html > page, but did not find one listed under the common project (not between > JServe and Lucene :-). [EMAIL PROTECTED], same as other Jakarta Commons projects ;) Yoav ---

JCL (was Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market)

Who is working on JCL nowadays? I was under the impression that discussions had already been under way with the JCL folks and moving out to slf4j was something they wanted too. The people working on JCL logging at the moment are Robert Donkin, Brian Stansberry and myself. As far as I know, I'm

Re: Revisiting Log4j Releases

- Original Message - From: "Endre Stølsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Log4J Developers List" Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:21 AM Subject: Re: Revisiting Log4j Releases But still: Just Get It Done! I am afraid of "a new 1.3" that slips and slips.. It won't slip and slip. -Mark -

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35020] New: - Using Logger and Runtime.exec() causes Explorer to run at 100% CPU

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Revisiting Log4j Releases

On Mon, 23 May 2005, Niclas Hedhman wrote: | On Monday 23 May 2005 12:44, Mark Womack wrote: | > Option 2 - 1.2.11 with just jms (and maybe throw in the bug fixes for the | > current 1.2.12 scheduled release).  1.3 based on last release of 1.2.X with | > the TRACE changes and some more deprecation

Re: Unfortunate Confusion signals to market

On Monday 23 May 2005 13:16, Mark Womack wrote: Wow. A lot more response than I expected. Let's not dwell in it. > But we need to get our own house in order and get > moving on our releases.  We have been working on the current cvs head for > too long without a major release. Cheers Niclas