Fellows, any ideas what we can do now? 6 days past and we have no vote (except my implicit one). We now know we need to improve our build. But I really would like to start with that after 1.2.17
Suggestion: please let me know if you have a chance to vote or not. I will gladly wait for another while, but if it is definitely not possible, we need to see if we can cancel this vote and instead working towards an improved build. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Curt Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 7, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > >> Hi All: >> >> Because I could not get the full build to run on Windows 7 with Maven 2 or >> 3. I feel reluctant to VOTE +1 here. This is a know issue due to the use the >> GNU app Winres. I get bits and pieces of the build to work but nothing like >> the level of confidence I have running Commons builds for different >> components. I can build the site (with the Maven stack trace noted in other >> RC votes), I can run the tests. The changes seems OK, but... as a new >> committer here I need to learn the code some more. >> >> Is the only way to get this to build is to install VirtualBox and a Linux >> distro? > > A cloud provider (Amazon Web Services, for example), a bootable USB or CD > would be another. A cloud provider could be problematic since you would not > want to have your code signing key on a machine you don't control. > > >> >> I will note the following nits though: >> >> The build instructions use both version 1.2.16 and 1.2.17 in text and >> examples, see >> "http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4j/1.2/building.html >> >> This is not critical but should be fixed in SVN. I would like to see version >> agnostic instructions or use the latest version (the one being built). >> >> I see this warning from M3 and M2: >> >> prepare: >> [available] DEPRECATED - <available> used to override an existing property. >> [available] Build file should not reuse the same property name for different >> values. >> >> Not a showstopper but should be addressed or documented in SVN. > > I haven't followed Ant for a long time. Ant properties since time began have > been immutable once set. it was once acceptable style to take advantage of > this documented behavior and, for example, set properties to a default value > that would be ignored if the called provided an explicit value. Apparently, > that fell out of style and hence this warning. I think the Nant didn't follow > that lead and lots of confusion ensued. > > I can't hit the 72 hour mark, but can try to review and build within 24 hours. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
