On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: > > Now the above could be fixed... but *somebody* needs to write some code > to > > make them fixed. In the absence of anyone writing such code and > committing > > it, those branches are dead... as are those choices. > > > > IF YOU WANT TO SPONSOR ONE OF THOSE BRANCHES THEN WRITE THE DAMN CODE TO > > GET THEM WALKING AGAIN > > > > That leaves logback and log4j2 on the table... > > > > JvZ has said that logback passes the ITs > > I have asked quite pointedly that Olivier (or anyone who is advocating > for > > log4j2) would run the ITs and provide confirmation that log4j2 passes the > > ITs. > branch logging/slf4j-log4j2 pass it (at least locally) and with this > jenkins job > https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/core-integration-testing-maven-3-jdk-1.6-log4j2/
Thank you. I will take that as PASSES (confirmed)... I assume JvZ will now rush to demonstrate Mr Jenkins passing for his branch so he can move up from PASSES (unconfirmed) ;-) > > > > > I would expect the "other" side in either choice, or an independent third > > party (such as Mr Jenkins if he can be made to get the integration tests > to > > pass at all) to provide confirmation that their "opposition" either has a > > branch that passes the integration tests or a claim that they are needing > > to give better proof. > > > > Now into that maelstrom Benson struck with his $0.02... arguing against > > log4j2 (for now) which kind of leaves us with logback (unless one of the > > other branches is brought back from the dead by somebody writing some > > code...) > My 0.02 euros. > Perso I use log4j2 for months without any issue. > And performance are good. Even here with Maven ! (See various reports > from folks on the other thread) > I read http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/performance.html (agree > benchmarks depends on various factors (and could be maybe different if > runed somewhere else) but that's something to take care. > Then Log4j2 is a community developpement effort and have a good > license for our Maven. > These kinds of things are the things we should be debating... so far I have not seen much debate... But I have been waiting to get some options through the technical gates first before trying to stir up any non-technical debates. > > > >
