On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 22:13 +0200, Joerg Hohwiller wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Simon, > > Simon Kitching wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 02:47 +0200, Joerg Hohwiller wrote: > > > >>As I have checked with offical releases ant seems > >>to be the master and maven is just there for other reasons (maybe the site > >>generation). > > > > > > Yes, this is the case. > > > > Up until now, commons-logging has always been built with Ant, with Maven > > just used for the website.
it's actually worse than this: all the releases that i've cut have needed to be adjusted manually. this isn't good. <snip> > >>For me the question is: > >>Is the API-jar build in maven.xml just legacy and can be kicked out? > >>Or on the other hand has someone evaluated if the test issue can be solved > >>with > >>a recent maven version and the ant can be replaced and kicked out? > > > > > > As you may have seen, the way unit testing is done has undergone a > > radical revision (by me). It was extremely convoluted before, and is > > hopefully now saner. I hoped that one of the outcomes was to be able to > > build/test from maven, but the log4j incompatibility issues then blew > > that goal out of the water again. the unit tests are *much* better now > > And unfortunately 2 months ago I ran out of time for working on > > commons-logging (combination of new relationship and new job; need 25 > > hours in the day *without* any open-source work!). > Thanks for making this clear. +1 > > If you think you can get this application building with Maven, then > > please have a go. It will be a challenge. > We'll the only idea I have right now is to add (fictive) subprojects for the > two > log4j versions. That might be an easy solution. we've discussed aggressively splitting JCL into separate builds before. there are significant disadvantages but also advantages. > My time is also very > limitted, but I will give it a try to play around and we'll see. i'm a little intrigued by the idea of fictive subprojects and look forward to seeing the results. > Anyways I hope there is anybody left from commons-logging for my > "getChildLogger" proposal. I am very keen on that. > If someone would have a look at it and let me know what else to do to make it > happen to be committed, I would be very pleased. > I already added a test for the new Logger features within the patch. > I would write additional information and potential FAQ entries. > But at the current moment I get very few feedback at all about what I want and > think. So I do not have a clue if my patch will be accepted. thanks for your patience. i'll try to take a look at the patch this weekend. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
