Hi Francis, In this case I suggest setting the level to FATAL and close this isssue.
Another question: In our readme.txt the build instructions are: > > === Eclipse === > > - Install the m2eclipse plugin and import the projects directly > http://m2eclipse.codehaus.org/ > In eclipse: Import... Maven projects > > - Run 'mvn clean install eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true' > In eclipse: Import... Existing projects into workspace Sounds a bit complicated to me. Is it OK if we change it to something like: > > === Eclipse === > > Change to src directory of Apache Empire-db distribution > and run > $ mvn install eclipse:eclipse > First of all I don't think the description for the m2eclipse plugin is accurate and second do we really need to specify options like "-DdownloadSources=true"? I can't tell whether or not the instructions for NetBeans are sufficient. BTW: In the Apache CXF distribution the pom is in the root directory and all you need to do is call mvn from the command line. There is no need to specify a goal. Would that be possible or desirable for us too? Regards Rainer P.S. I will be on a business trip with limited access to E-Mail the next couple of days. So don't expect immediate answers. Rainer Francis De Brabandere wrote: > Re: ready for release? > > Concerning the release there might be a difference for incubator > projects but I'll have a look at it tomorrow. > > As for the logging I don't care that the build logs a lot but it's not > that I'm against hiding the logging either > > Francis > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Francis, > > > > well I did it myself on my machine and I was just thinking about it. > > My personal opinion is, that I don't need log output from tests for > every build - all I need to know is whether any of the tests failed at > all. If so, I can investigate on this specific test. > > But it's a personal opinion. > > Write the log output to a file sounds like a good idea to me too. > > > > The next question is: Do we now put it up for voting or not. > > Is there anything else we can or must supply. > > > > Apache CXF has a nice document called "BUILDING.txt" that explains > how to build with Maven. > > We could adapt this for our release. > > > > @Jörg are you still reading this. What's your opinion? > > > > Regards > > Rainer > > > > Francis De Brabandere wrote: > >> Re: logging of unit tests > >> > >> So I set the level to FATAL and put those parse warnings back to > error > >> then? Should I convert the log4j settings to xml format? > >> > >> But if you are not interested in them maybe we can just log to a > file > >> in the target folder instead of console? > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Francis, > >> > > >> > thanks a lot. > >> > Now I can see where the properties for log4j are set. > >> > I didn't think about looking in src/test/resources - but its > logical. > >> > Usually we use an embedded xml configuration instead of a > properties > >> file. > >> > > >> > The output is much better, however I would even consider setting > the > >> debug level to FATAL instead of WARN. > >> > The overall result is measured anyway and there is IMO not much > >> benefit in having the log output there. > >> > What do you think? > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > Rainer > >> > > >> > > >> > Francis De Brabandere wrote: > >> >> Re: revive the release process > >> >> > >> >> Changed those errors to warnings for logging since a default > value > >> is > >> >> provided these are no real exceptions. > >> >> Also set the unit test default log level to WARN > >> >> > >> >> Let me know if this is ok, we could also keep them at error level > >> and > >> >> not provide the stack trace. I don't know of an option in log4j > to > >> >> hide the traces > >> >> > >> >> What do you think? > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Francis De > >> >> Brabandere<[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > Hi Rainer, > >> >> > > >> >> > I'll have a look at the logging this evening. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Rainer > Döbele<[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Francis (and everyone interested), > >> >> >> > >> >> >> after it has been very quiet on the dev-mailing list recently, > I > >> >> would like to revive the release process of empire-db 2.0.5 in > order > >> to > >> >> be able to go ahead with some possibly bigger changes. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The current assembly builds well and I as far as I can tell > all > >> >> required legal documents are there. > >> >> >> However, there is one thing that annoys me: > >> >> >> The JUnit test-code produces very verbose output - including > some > >> >> exceptions. > >> >> >> Those exceptions are intended and handled properly - but are > >> >> confusing. > >> >> >> @Francis: is there a way of disabling log output when running > the > >> >> unit tests? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Apart from that the assembly is fine to me. > >> >> >> Anyone else to comment the assembly before we put it up for > >> voting? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Regards > >> >> >> Rainer > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > http://www.somatik.be > >> >> > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> http://www.somatik.be > >> >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://www.somatik.be > >> Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house. > > > > > > -- > http://www.somatik.be > Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
