At 12:07 AM 12/17/2005, Curt Arnold wrote:
Mark Womack, Ron Grabowski (from log4net) and I just recently
returned from ApacheCON US 2005. I expect that Mark will be
preparing a report on the Birds of a Feather on Monday night, our
discussions on a release plan for 1.3 and thoughts on 2.0.
One
Unmaintainable may be a bit much, but I think it is fair to say that
moving to something more modern, like Maven2, could yield some benefits. As
Curt mentioned, there are some really nice features around documentation.
We need to figure out the options and settings, but I think it has greater
I think, but need to prove, that a Maven2 build will be easier than the Ant
version.
I agree that getting 1.3 out the door is a higher priority, but updating our
documentation is a pretty high item for 1.3 (IMO) and if Maven2 makes this
better/easier, then I am willing to make it happen.
Yeah, we are talking Maven2 here. It appears to be a really big improvement
over Maven1.
-Mark
- Original Message -
From: Scott Heaberlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Log4J Developers List log4j-dev@logging.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Exploration of use
There is one thing I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet that I
wasn't going to offer up but after seeing this comment, perhaps I
should...
quote
namely the maintenance effort to keep an up to date pom.xml (or
project.xml, which may be the more standard name IIRC, but it doesn't
matter
Mark Womack, Ron Grabowski (from log4net) and I just recently
returned from ApacheCON US 2005. I expect that Mark will be
preparing a report on the Birds of a Feather on Monday night, our
discussions on a release plan for 1.3 and thoughts on 2.0.
One of my concerns had been the content
My limited experiences with Maven and Forrest have yielded observations very much in line with your comments.
Curt Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/16/2005 03:07:23 PM:
...
I had been interested in seeing if Apache Forrest (http://
forrest.apache.org) might be an better solution,
Explored a little more and committed some additional enhancements. A
sample of the generated documentation from Maven can be viewed at
http://people.apache.org/~carnold/log4j_mvn/maven-reports.html.
There are many known issues: several of the links point to non-
existent documents, the
Hi,
My take on it is same as before: it's a nice tool, has some cool
features. But it's only worth pursuing if the benefits outweigh the
costs, namely the maintenance effort to keep an up to date pom.xml (or
project.xml, which may be the more standard name IIRC, but it doesn't
matter much).
I
On Dec 16, 2005, at 9:55 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
One good thing to ask ourselves is: is this really the itch to
scratch? Have users been complaining about the current documentation?
Or is our time better spent on getting log4j 1.3 backwards-compatible
and out-the-door already?
I think
10 matches
Mail list logo
