Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

I have fixed the page on my GitHub site. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > > +1 > checksums good, build good, site good other than H3 on top page. > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > >> FWIW, if I have to

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

+1 checksums good, build good, site good other than H3 on top page. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > FWIW, if I have to download and compile the source code for Java libraries, > I usually just skip tests. > > On 20 November 2017 at 13:50, Ralph Goers

Re: [Chainsaw] Next step: Log4j 2

Awesome! Re: appenders: We went through a couple of code re-orgs back in 2011 and 2013, some stuff was moved out of Chainsaw to apache-log4j-extras. Looks like some was left behind. You can define Chainsaw as an appender yourself - so the UI starts if it's in the log4j xml config file.

Re: [Chainsaw] Next step: Log4j 2

We should complete the release of the current code before merging any of this stuff, but we can start this work in a branch while waiting for the release. On 2017-11-20 21:41, Mikael Ståldal wrote: I took a look at the Chainsaw source code, and tried to remove its dependency on Log4j 1 and

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

FWIW, if I have to download and compile the source code for Java libraries, I usually just skip tests. On 20 November 2017 at 13:50, Ralph Goers wrote: > More like 4 hors > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 20, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Mikael Ståldal

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

More like 4 hors Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > > It is. But how common is it that people download the source of a particular > release? I think that most people either download the binary artifacts, or > build the source from

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

It is. But how common is it that people download the source of a particular release? I think that most people either download the binary artifacts, or build the source from latest master branch (and there it is already fixed). Maybe we can include something about this in the release notes,

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

It's just lame that if someone downloads the source they cannot even build it :-( Gayr On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > I agree with Ralph. > > On 2017-11-20 20:03, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Unless you find something else I am not inclined to rerun the

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

I agree with Ralph. On 2017-11-20 20:03, Ralph Goers wrote: Unless you find something else I am not inclined to rerun the release just to fix a unit test where we know what the problem is and that has no impact on the code customers use. Ralph On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Unless you find something else I am not inclined to rerun the release just to fix a unit test where we know what the problem is and that has no impact on the code customers use. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Here it is: > > [ERROR] Tests run: 13, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: > 1.469 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.log4j.config. > Log4j1ConfigurationFactoryTest > [ERROR]

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

We get this error from time to time in Jenkins. It seems to happen more often in Windows. As far as I am concerned this is another error we can ignore for the purposes of the release. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Here it is: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Here it is: [ERROR] Tests run: 13, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1.469 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.log4j.config.Log4j1ConfigurationFactoryTest [ERROR] testSystemProperties1(org.apache.log4j.config.Log4j1ConfigurationFactoryTest) Time elapsed: 0.027 s <<< ERROR!

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

AFK sorry On Nov 20, 2017 12:19, "Mikael Ståldal" wrote: Is that the complete error message? On 2017-11-20 17:41, Gary Gregory wrote: > Now I get a different failure. I had run the build in Windows but from the > git command line (MINGW64). That that I run from a "real"

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Is that the complete error message? On 2017-11-20 17:41, Gary Gregory wrote: Now I get a different failure. I had run the build in Windows but from the git command line (MINGW64). That that I run from a "real" Windows command line I get: [ERROR] Errors: [ERROR]

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Wow, Now I get a different failure. I had run the build in Windows but from the git command line (MINGW64). That that I run from a "real" Windows command line I get: [ERROR] Errors: [ERROR] Log4j1ConfigurationFactoryTest.testSystemProperties1:173 » FileSystem C:\Users... [INFO] [ERROR] Tests

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

I can manually fix the html before the site is published if needed. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2017, at 8:42 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > +1 > > Signatures good. Works with my tested projects. Site looks mostly good, > though there's an errant "h3" in the index page. Could be more

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

+1 Signatures good. Works with my tested projects. Site looks mostly good, though there's an errant "h3" in the index page. Could be more site things, though they can all be applied after a release. On 20 November 2017 at 07:36, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Checked out

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Checked out and ran mvn clean install, next I updated my experimental pom.xml for cloudstack and did a mvn clean install. No errors to see so +1. Nice work people, congrats so far and thanks. On 20/11/2017, 14:37, "Apache" wrote: The fact that you can’t see a

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

The fact that you can’t see a difference is why I think it is a code page issue and also why I think the failure is insignificant to the release. Ralph > On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:40 AM, Remko Popma wrote: > > Ran another build from the release tag, with Java 7. Build

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

Ran another build from the release tag, with Java 7. Build succeeds. I'll look at the checksums and the site next. Gary, could you run another clean build? The error messages look strange: I cannot see any difference between the expected and the actual result in the error output... Apache

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.10.0-rc1

> On Nov 20, 2017, at 15:21, Ralph Goers wrote: > > Oh, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the problem is caused by you using MS932 > and Greg using cp1252. From Gary’s error messages it seems more like a white space/newline issue which is odd because it works on my