1. Perform the release build.
2. Build the site.
3. Upload the site to where we can view it.
4. Vote on it.
5. When it passes upload the site to a directory adjacent to the log4j2 site
directory. Something like log4j-scala/log4j-scala-11.0.
Once you have that we can modify the links in the log4j
I believe Flume is using Sphinx, but I think that is still driving from Maven.
I would look at some other Apache sites, find one you like and then figure out
how they did it.
Ralph
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> We don't have to use maven-site-plugin to generate the Scal
We don't have to use maven-site-plugin to generate the Scala site. That's
just the easy way to do it in theory, though I find it cumbersome. If you
know of any better documentation generator that we could use there (or even
in log4j-core), please let us know!
On 3 April 2017 at 04:06, Mikael Ståld
Using SBT would help to avoid having to duplicate the source code for each
Scala version. However, I'm not sure about how to do the Maven site stuff
with SBT.
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I'm not too experienced with it, but now that the Scala APIs are in their
> own rep
I'm not too experienced with it, but now that the Scala APIs are in their
own repo, it might be easier to use SBT instead of Maven for it. Just a
thought for a future release.
On 2 April 2017 at 15:27, Matt Sicker wrote:
> And don't mind the site commit I made earlier. That was from a snapshot,
And don't mind the site commit I made earlier. That was from a snapshot, so
I have to commit it again anyways.
On 2 April 2017 at 15:25, Matt Sicker wrote:
> No, I figured I'd do log4j-core first. Still working on that right now,
> had to restart the build from the tag because a test randomly de
No, I figured I'd do log4j-core first. Still working on that right now, had
to restart the build from the tag because a test randomly decided to fail
at the worst possible time.
On 2 April 2017 at 15:11, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Has a Scala release been performed? The site needs to be deployed befor
Yes, when we have the build process (including documentation/site) working
for the new repo.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Now that we have a populated Scala repo, shall we remove the Scala modules
> from the main repo?
>
> Gary
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com |
Very cool!
On 10 November 2016 at 04:47, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> We are now listed here: https://index.scala-lang.org/apache/logging-log4j2
>
> --
> [image: MagineTV]
>
> *Mikael Ståldal*
> Senior software developer
>
> *Magine TV*
> mikael.stal...@magine.com
> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockho
Yes.
It is a bit tricky to run the unit-tests in those modules from within IDEA
though, but it is possible.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> And can you have both Scala modules in the same
> project/workspace/whatever-IDEA-calls-it
> compiling OK?
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Aug
If it is a Maven project IntelliJ uses Maven to build it. So yes, there isn’t a
problem having multiple instances of the same class name in different modules.
Ralph
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> And can you have both Scala modules in the same
> project/workspace/whatev
And can you have both Scala modules in the same
project/workspace/whatever-IDEA-calls-it compiling OK?
Gary
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> I don't know, I only use IntelliJ IDEA.
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a spec
I'm also pretty sure we had this same exact discussion back when Mikael was
naming the modules originally.
On 31 August 2016 at 10:48, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Check.
>
> Gary
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Mikael Ståldal > wrote:
>
>> No, there is a naming conventions for Scala modules whic
Check.
Gary
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Mikael Ståldal
wrote:
> No, there is a naming conventions for Scala modules which is like that,
> and we need to stick to it to be compatible with SBT (the most popular
> build tool for Scala projects).
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gary Grego
No, there is a naming conventions for Scala modules which is like that, and
we need to stick to it to be compatible with SBT (the most popular build
tool for Scala projects).
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> We have a naming inconsistency where we use a dash to separate the
I don't know, I only use IntelliJ IDEA.
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a specific version of Scala plugins I should use to get the new
> Scala modules to build in Eclipse? Is it possible to have both the 2.10 and
> 2.11 Scala modules building in the same
16 matches
Mail list logo
