Maybe 152B55 or 061739
See http://paletton.com/#uid=13J0u0kaFw0g0qFqFg0w0aF
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> You got a hex code for that color? :)
>
> On 4 October 2014 22:10, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From:
>> Date:
You got a hex code for that color? :)
On 4 October 2014 22:10, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From:
> Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:56 PM
> Subject: [1/2] git commit: CSS tweaks.
> To: [email protected]
>
>
> Repository: logging-log4j2
> Updated Branche
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Subject: [1/2] git commit: CSS tweaks.
To: [email protected]
Repository: logging-log4j2
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master f36b214ab -> 394475673
CSS tweaks.
Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repo
Thanks!
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:55 AM, wrote:
>
>> Repository: logging-log4j2
>> Updated Branches:
>> refs/heads/master 5ae0e6c00 -> 85f586c99
>>
>>
>> Use of constants in JConsole plugin.
>>
>>
>> Project: http://git-wip-us.a
Otsukaresama!
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> I'm going to start the release process for candidate 4 on Sunday.
>
> On 4 October 2014 17:43, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> Alright, I've updated all the poms to use essentially the same reporting
>> section (except for additional c
I'm going to start the release process for candidate 4 on Sunday.
On 4 October 2014 17:43, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Alright, I've updated all the poms to use essentially the same reporting
> section (except for additional customizations in a couple modules). Added
> ProviderUtil.loadProviders() back
YW!
G
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> My IDE settings must be messed up. Let me look into this. Thanks for
> noticing, though!
>
> On 4 October 2014 19:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> -1. This is backwards:
>>
>> -import java.awt.BorderLayout;
>> -import java.awt.Color;
>> -i
My IDE settings must be messed up. Let me look into this. Thanks for
noticing, though!
On 4 October 2014 19:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> -1. This is backwards:
>
> -import java.awt.BorderLayout;
> -import java.awt.Color;
> -import java.awt.Component;
> -import java.awt.Font;
> +import java.awt.*;
>
-1. This is backwards:
-import java.awt.BorderLayout;
-import java.awt.Color;
-import java.awt.Component;
-import java.awt.Font;
+import java.awt.*;
We do _not_ want * imports for normal imports, only for special cases like
static imports of JUnit Assert methods.
Gary
-- Forwarded messa
Got it.
On 4 October 2014 18:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Can you add a Javadoc with an @deprecated tag that says something to the
> effect of "do this instead" or "there is no replacement" and "might be
> removed in 3.0".
>
> Thank you!
> Gary
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From:
>
Can you add a Javadoc with an @deprecated tag that says something to the
effect of "do this instead" or "there is no replacement" and "might be
removed in 3.0".
Thank you!
Gary
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:41 PM
Subject: git commit: Add method removed
Music to my ears :-)
Gary
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:38 PM
Subject: [1/4] git commit: Normalize reporting sections in poms.
To: [email protected]
Repository: logging-log4j2
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/master ef23c80d7 -> 1c488bf42
No
Alright, I've updated all the poms to use essentially the same reporting
section (except for additional customizations in a couple modules). Added
ProviderUtil.loadProviders() back. Added clirr to the root pom and
log4j-api. Also updated the other files that are missing headers.
On 4 October 2014
Just run the plugin as part of the build.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Agreed. Just gotta configure rat I guess?
>
> On 4 October 2014 17:13, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Would it be better to make the build fail if the license header is
>> missing? This would catch th
Agreed. Just gotta configure rat I guess?
On 4 October 2014 17:13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Would it be better to make the build fail if the license header is
> missing? This would catch these errors earlier.
>
> Gary
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From:
> Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at
Would it be better to make the build fail if the license header is missing?
This would catch these errors earlier.
Gary
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:06 PM
Subject: [2/2] git commit: Add license headers.
To: [email protected]
Add license hea
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> log4j-core:
> MainInputArgumentsLookup doesn't have a license header along with a couple
> tests.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~mattsicker/log4j/2.1/log4j-jul/index.html
> The javadoc links to custom levels are wrong.
>
>
> http://people.apache
FYI: I am going to be AFK soon but this is a good process. Hopefully the
usual suspects will chime in this weekend.
Thank you again, Matt, for doing the RM work.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> javadoc links in log4j-web are not being generated for javaee6, nor to any
Here is how I set up Clirr:
diff --git a/log4j-api/pom.xml b/log4j-api/pom.xml
index a81117d..a9effe2 100644
--- a/log4j-api/pom.xml
+++ b/log4j-api/pom.xml
@@ -120,6 +120,11 @@
+org.codehaus.mojo
+clirr-maven-plugin
+${clirr.plugin.version}
+
+
javadoc links in log4j-web are not being generated for javaee6, nor to any
other log4j modules (including some that are in log4j-web for some reason!)
Actually, there are linking problems in all the javadocs.
On 4 October 2014 16:40, Matt Sicker wrote:
> log4j-core:
> MainInputArgumentsLookup d
Oh, obviously the simple solution is to add the API back and deprecate it.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> In master, Clirr says:
>
> [ERROR] 7002: org.apache.logging.log4j.util.ProviderUtil: Method
> 'protected void loadProviders(java.util.Enumeration,
> java.lang.Cl
In master, Clirr says:
[ERROR] 7002: org.apache.logging.log4j.util.ProviderUtil: Method 'protected
void loadProviders(java.util.Enumeration, java.lang.ClassLoader)' has been
removed
So we need to decide if the util package is off limits to BC or not. If so,
we might need to rename it to internal
log4j-core:
MainInputArgumentsLookup doesn't have a license header along with a couple
tests.
http://people.apache.org/~mattsicker/log4j/2.1/log4j-jul/index.html
The javadoc links to custom levels are wrong.
http://people.apache.org/~mattsicker/log4j/2.1/log4j-jul/project-reports.html
Is this mis
I see you're using Java 8 to build which gives us the more modern looking
Javadocs, nice! :-)
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Not sure how to enable Clirr or anything. I'm uploading the site right
> now, so you can give it another look in a few minutes.
>
> On 4 Octob
Not sure how to enable Clirr or anything. I'm uploading the site right now,
so you can give it another look in a few minutes.
On 4 October 2014 16:23, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The site: That's usually the first thing I look at to find obvious
> blockers like a dirty RAT or Clirr report.
>
> Speakin
The site: That's usually the first thing I look at to find obvious blockers
like a dirty RAT or Clirr report.
Speaking of Clirr reports... where are they?
We MUST have Clirr reports at least for the API module to make sure we are
not breaking binary compatibility.
For non-API modules, we are bre
Oh no, I haven't regenerated the site yet. I'll update that in a bit.
On 4 October 2014 16:13, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Did you update the site on your people page? The RAT report is still dirty.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> This is a vote to release Log4j 2
Did you update the site on your people page? The RAT report is still dirty.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
> project.
>
> Please download, test, and cast your votes.
> [] +1, release the artifa
The source zip contains all of the .gitignore files. There should not be in
there. The assembly can exclude them.
I am not sure this is a blocker but no other Apache and FOSS projects I've
seen allows it.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j
This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
project.
Please download, test, and cast your votes.
[] +1, release the artifacts
[] -1, don't release because...
The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or more if required). All votes are
welcome, but only Logging PMC vo
Alright, I'll update the pom in a bit. Trying rc3 right now (rc2 turned out
to be a "tag" of 2.2-SNAPSHOT for some reason).
On 4 October 2014 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Well, you can exclude this one generated file from RAT processing. But in
> general we want a clean RAT report, the POM can d
Well, you can exclude this one generated file from RAT processing. But in
general we want a clean RAT report, the POM can document why it is OK to
exclude this and that file from RAT.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> How is a generated failsafe-summary.xml a licensed fi
How is a generated failsafe-summary.xml a licensed file? Also, took care of
the other one.
On 4 October 2014 15:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Wait up!
>
> You should fix:
>
> Unapproved licenses:
>
> atlassian-ide-plugin.xml
> log4j-distribution/target/failsafe-reports/failsafe-summary.xml
>
> G
Not a blocker: I really dislike the use of red as a font color for the code
style. It's alarming. Red still means stop in my book.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
> project.
>
> Please download,
On the site, the link at the bottom left (in the nav menu) for surefire is
broken:
https://people.apache.org/~mattsicker/log4j/2.1/surefire-report.html
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
> project
Wait up!
You should fix:
Unapproved licenses:
atlassian-ide-plugin.xml
log4j-distribution/target/failsafe-reports/failsafe-summary.xml
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Whoops, I mixed up the order there. Trying again with candidate 2.
>
> On 4 October 2014 15:1
Whoops, I mixed up the order there. Trying again with candidate 2.
On 4 October 2014 15:12, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Yes. The release plugin should have deployed those to Nexus. You delete
> them from Nexus after the vote when you publish them to the distribution
> archives and before the are mov
Yes. The release plugin should have deployed those to Nexus. You delete them
from Nexus after the vote when you publish them to the distribution archives
and before the are moved from Staging to Release.
Ralph
On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:07 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> In the Nexus?
>
> On 4 October
In the Nexus?
On 4 October 2014 15:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Something is missing: there is supposed to be a set of zip/tar balls that
> are a binary and source distributions.
>
> Gary
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
>> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next majo
Something is missing: there is supposed to be a set of zip/tar balls that
are a binary and source distributions.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
> project.
>
> Please download, test, and cast yo
Apologies, the correct wget command to download everything is:
wget -e robots=off --cut-dirs=3 -r -p -np --no-check-certificate
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelogging-1008/org/apache/logging/log4j/
On 4 October 2014 14:50, Matt Sicker wrote:
> This is a vote to rele
This is a vote to release Log4j 2.1, the next major version of the Log4j 2
project.
Please download, test, and cast your votes.
[] +1, release the artifacts
[] -1, don't release because...
The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or more if required). All votes are
welcome, but only Logging PMC vo
Remko, I fixed that in my local branch. I'll push that today before I
officially start the release process.
On 4 October 2014 07:47, Remko Popma wrote:
> The perf module doesn't have unit tests, all benchmarks are in main. Some
> benchmarks test logback, so that's ok to remain as a main dependen
The perf module doesn't have unit tests, all benchmarks are in main. Some
benchmarks test logback, so that's ok to remain as a main dependency.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2014/10/04, at 21:18, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Done. Just one change. The perf module is a "main" dep.
>
> Gary
>
>> On Sa
Done. Just one change. The perf module is a "main" dep.
Gary
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> That would make sense indeed.
>
> On 3 October 2014 21:16, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> Shouldn't all the logback references in POMs be in the test scope?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
Odd:
I see a test failure only on Linux with mvn test in
org.apache.log4j.LoggingTest.testParent()
The Maven build is fine on Windows.
Anyone else?
On Linux in am in VirtualBox, Maven 3.0.5, Oracle Java 1.7.0_65, Linux
3.13.0-36-generic.
Gary
--
E-Mail: [email protected] | ggreg...@apac
46 matches
Mail list logo
