On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Rainer Döbele<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Francis, > > In this case I suggest setting the level to FATAL and close this isssue.
Done > > 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. Feel free to change it to what you think is better, I'll let you know if I disagree ;-) We could point to the sites of maven and m2e instead of explaining ourselves... http://maven.apache.org/eclipse-plugin.html (mvn eclipse:eclipse not explained) The netbeans info is correct, there's nothing much to do in that IDE appart form installing the plugin (Even think it comes standard installed now) http://maven.apache.org/netbeans-module.html > > 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? that is possible, I added <defaultGoal>install</defaultGoal> to the <build> section, but this won't perform a clean/recompile on a second build! > > 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. > -- http://www.somatik.be Microsoft gives you windows, Linux gives you the whole house.
