Yup, the logback stuff all passes. The grid has been a bit wonky but I'll put a job up there.
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 December 2012 17:28, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > >> 2012/12/17 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>: >>> 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. > > >> >>> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl --------------------------------------------------------- Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. -- Benjamin Franklin
