You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@logging.apache.org by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org> on 2005/09/05 01:01:51 UTC
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Hi Henri,
We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide migration.
Is that timeframe ok with you? What are the things we need to decide as
part of the migration?
One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can play
in .
thanks,
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
Cc: "Shapira, Yoav" <Yo...@mpi.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
> Pinging again :)
>
> CVS-wise you've got:
>
> logging-chainsaw/
> logging-log4cxx/
> logging-log4j/
> logging-log4j-attic/
> logging-log4j-sandbox/
> logging-log4net/
> logging-log4php/
> logging-site/
>
> Are they all still active?
>
> The obvious mapping to SVN would be:
>
> logging/
> chainsaw/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> log4cxx/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> log4j/
> attic/
> sandbox/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> proper/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> log4net/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> log4php/
> trunk/ branches/ tags/
> site/
>
> Only using 'proper' as the alternative to sandbox as that's what
> commons/taglibs uses.
>
> Hen
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
I have not gotten any indication that folks are going to be available
tomorrow besides Henri and myself. I don't think we should approve the
migration until someone from each subproject reviews and approves.
So, please spend some time this weekend reviewing the initial conversion
that Henri has performed and post feedback here. We will finalize the
migration before the end of next week.
[Henri, sorry if this seems to be taking longer than expected. We'll get it
wrapped up quickly though]
thanks,
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
To: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>; "Henri Yandell"
<ba...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
> Should we set up some kind of Yahoo! IM Conference or an IRC chat channel
> for tomorrow? I can set up a Yahoo! conference, but I don't know if
> everyone has a yahoo id. I don't know how to set up an irc channel. Who
> is going to be around?
>
> -Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
> To: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
> Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
>
>> Hi Henri,
>>
>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
>> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide migration.
>> Is that timeframe ok with you? What are the things we need to decide as
>> part of the migration?
>>
>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can
>> play in .
>>
>> thanks,
>> -Mark
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
>> To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
>> Cc: "Shapira, Yoav" <Yo...@mpi.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 5:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Pinging again :)
>>>
>>> CVS-wise you've got:
>>>
>>> logging-chainsaw/
>>> logging-log4cxx/
>>> logging-log4j/
>>> logging-log4j-attic/
>>> logging-log4j-sandbox/
>>> logging-log4net/
>>> logging-log4php/
>>> logging-site/
>>>
>>> Are they all still active?
>>>
>>> The obvious mapping to SVN would be:
>>>
>>> logging/
>>> chainsaw/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> log4cxx/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> log4j/
>>> attic/
>>> sandbox/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> proper/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> log4net/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> log4php/
>>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>>> site/
>>>
>>> Only using 'proper' as the alternative to sandbox as that's what
>>> commons/taglibs uses.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
Should we set up some kind of Yahoo! IM Conference or an IRC chat channel
for tomorrow? I can set up a Yahoo! conference, but I don't know if
everyone has a yahoo id. I don't know how to set up an irc channel. Who is
going to be around?
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
To: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
> Hi Henri,
>
> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide migration.
> Is that timeframe ok with you? What are the things we need to decide as
> part of the migration?
>
> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can play
> in .
>
> thanks,
> -Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
> To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
> Cc: "Shapira, Yoav" <Yo...@mpi.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
>
>>
>> Pinging again :)
>>
>> CVS-wise you've got:
>>
>> logging-chainsaw/
>> logging-log4cxx/
>> logging-log4j/
>> logging-log4j-attic/
>> logging-log4j-sandbox/
>> logging-log4net/
>> logging-log4php/
>> logging-site/
>>
>> Are they all still active?
>>
>> The obvious mapping to SVN would be:
>>
>> logging/
>> chainsaw/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> log4cxx/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> log4j/
>> attic/
>> sandbox/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> proper/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> log4net/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> log4php/
>> trunk/ branches/ tags/
>> site/
>>
>> Only using 'proper' as the alternative to sandbox as that's what
>> commons/taglibs uses.
>>
>> Hen
>
>
>
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
I still cannot check out the logging-site repository. I am going to look at
that, logging-sandbox, and logging-chainsaw tomorrow evening.
We need to close the loop on this migration and do the switch. log4net has
signed off. I will my final opinion for log4j tomorrow.
Curt, have you had a chance to do the log4cxx side?
Scott, have you had a chance to look at the chainsaw part?
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
To: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>; "Logging General"
<ge...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>- I was able to checkout everything except for logging-site.logging-log4j.
>It kept saying "Aborted (core dumped)". There was little useful
>information in the dump file. I was using the command:
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
>
> - In the log4j repo, the structure looks the same. As Curt mentioned, we
> may want to reorganize, but that is a post-svn migration task.
>
> - I was able to build the log4j jars minus slf4j (only b7 is available
> from slf4j.org and we require b4). I think I need to get logging-site
> before I can do a full distribution build. Just to note, the current head
> requires jdk 1.4 to compile.
>
> - I was able to successfully run the tests against the jars I built.
>
> - Is the 1.2 branch available? I want to try a build on that branch.
>
> I'm happy with it so far. Has anyone tried logging-chainsaw or
> logging-sandbox? I will dtry sandbox tomorrow night.
>
> Henri, is it possible to put the current sandbox code into a log4j sub dir
> or would it just be better if we did that post-migration ourselves?
>
> -Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
> To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
> Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
>
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/
>>
>> *************
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/chainsaw/trunk
>> logging-chainsaw
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4cxx/trunk
>> logging-log4cxx
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4j/trunk
>> logging-log4j
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/sandbox/trunk
>> logging-sandbox
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4net/trunk
>> logging-log4net
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4php/trunk
>> logging-log4php
>>
>> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
>> ***************
>>
>> I haven't done logging-core yet as I'll need to get temporarily added to
>> the logging PMC to see the files. Also I need to find out where it goes
>> in the private repository.
>>
>> Anyway, how does that look?
>>
>> Email notifications aim to match whatever they were in CVS as trying to
>> sync the migration with new mailing lists is tricky as it's different
>> people.
>>
>> I've just received access to go look on the mail server for these things,
>> so this'll be the first time in which I'm not going to just go look at
>> mail-archives and hope to find some cvs commits :)
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>>
>>> Henri,
>>>
>>> We can try a test migration for the structure you mention. I don't
>>> think we need log4j-attic; it can just be archived. Also, we want to
>>> change logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox. It is going to be a
>>> repository that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental
>>> stuff. We may need to rearrange its contents.
>>>
>>> How will checkin emails/notifications work? Is it possible to get
>>> subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will
>>> there be one email list that gets all checkin notifications?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
>>> To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
>>> Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Henri,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to
>>>>> svn. We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide
>>>>> migration. Is that timeframe ok with you?
>>>>
>>>> (Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US
>>>> Eastern).
>>>>
>>>> We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the
>>>> structure.
>>>>
>>>>> What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
>>>>
>>>> Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
>>>>
>>>> logging-chainsaw
>>>> logging-core
>>>> logging-log4cxx
>>>> logging-log4j
>>>> logging-log4j-sandbox
>>>> logging-log4net
>>>> logging-log4php
>>>> logging-site
>>>>
>>>> Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
>>>>
>>>> logging
>>>> <subproject>
>>>> trunk
>>>> branches
>>>> tags
>>>> site
>>>>
>>>> It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves
>>>> log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is
>>>> log4j-attic wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be
>>>> something to archive.
>>>>
>>>> For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and
>>>> let you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
>>>>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can
>>>>> play in .
>>>>
>>>> As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for
>>>> the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and
>>>> isn't left to each individual subproject.
>>>>
>>>> Hen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
- I was able to checkout everything except for logging-site.logging-log4j.
It kept saying "Aborted (core dumped)". There was little useful information
in the dump file. I was using the command:
svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
- In the log4j repo, the structure looks the same. As Curt mentioned, we
may want to reorganize, but that is a post-svn migration task.
- I was able to build the log4j jars minus slf4j (only b7 is available from
slf4j.org and we require b4). I think I need to get logging-site before I
can do a full distribution build. Just to note, the current head requires
jdk 1.4 to compile.
- I was able to successfully run the tests against the jars I built.
- Is the 1.2 branch available? I want to try a build on that branch.
I'm happy with it so far. Has anyone tried logging-chainsaw or
logging-sandbox? I will dtry sandbox tomorrow night.
Henri, is it possible to put the current sandbox code into a log4j sub dir
or would it just be better if we did that post-migration ourselves?
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/
>
> *************
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/chainsaw/trunk
> logging-chainsaw
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4cxx/trunk
> logging-log4cxx
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4j/trunk logging-log4j
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/sandbox/trunk
> logging-sandbox
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4net/trunk
> logging-log4net
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/log4php/trunk
> logging-log4php
>
> svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/test/logging/site logging-site
> ***************
>
> I haven't done logging-core yet as I'll need to get temporarily added to
> the logging PMC to see the files. Also I need to find out where it goes in
> the private repository.
>
> Anyway, how does that look?
>
> Email notifications aim to match whatever they were in CVS as trying to
> sync the migration with new mailing lists is tricky as it's different
> people.
>
> I've just received access to go look on the mail server for these things,
> so this'll be the first time in which I'm not going to just go look at
> mail-archives and hope to find some cvs commits :)
>
> Hen
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>
>> Henri,
>>
>> We can try a test migration for the structure you mention. I don't think
>> we need log4j-attic; it can just be archived. Also, we want to change
>> logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox. It is going to be a repository
>> that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental stuff. We may
>> need to rearrange its contents.
>>
>> How will checkin emails/notifications work? Is it possible to get
>> subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will there
>> be one email list that gets all checkin notifications?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -Mark
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
>> To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
>> Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Henri,
>>>>
>>>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
>>>> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide
>>>> migration. Is that timeframe ok with you?
>>>
>>> (Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US
>>> Eastern).
>>>
>>> We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the
>>> structure.
>>>
>>>> What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
>>>
>>> Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
>>>
>>> logging-chainsaw
>>> logging-core
>>> logging-log4cxx
>>> logging-log4j
>>> logging-log4j-sandbox
>>> logging-log4net
>>> logging-log4php
>>> logging-site
>>>
>>> Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
>>>
>>> logging
>>> <subproject>
>>> trunk
>>> branches
>>> tags
>>> site
>>>
>>> It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves
>>> log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is
>>> log4j-attic wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be
>>> something to archive.
>>>
>>> For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and
>>> let you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
>>>
>>>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
>>>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can
>>>> play in .
>>>
>>> As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for
>>> the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and isn't
>>> left to each individual subproject.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
Posted by Mark Womack <mw...@apache.org>.
Henri,
We can try a test migration for the structure you mention. I don't think we
need log4j-attic; it can just be archived. Also, we want to change
logging-log4j-sandbox to logging-sandbox. It is going to be a repository
that is used by all of the subprojects for experimental stuff. We may need
to rearrange its contents.
How will checkin emails/notifications work? Is it possible to get
subproject checkins sent to the subproject dev mailing list or will there be
one email list that gets all checkin notifications?
thanks,
-Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henri Yandell" <ba...@apache.org>
To: "Mark Womack" <mw...@apache.org>
Cc: "Logging General" <ge...@logging.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Logging-Log4j -> SVN
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Mark Womack wrote:
>
>> Hi Henri,
>>
>> We are planning to migrate all of the Logging Services projects to svn.
>> We'd like to target the timeframe of 9/10 for the project-wide migration.
>> Is that timeframe ok with you?
>
> (Presuming you mean next weekend) Should be doable. 20:00 onwards (US
> Eastern).
>
> We should go ahead and do a test migration as soon as you decide the
> structure.
>
>> What are the things we need to decide as part of the migration?
>
> Mainly where each one of the following should goto:
>
> logging-chainsaw
> logging-core
> logging-log4cxx
> logging-log4j
> logging-log4j-sandbox
> logging-log4net
> logging-log4php
> logging-site
>
> Obvious one (as mentioned previously) is:
>
> logging
> <subproject>
> trunk
> branches
> tags
> site
>
> It's common to not bother with branches/tags for the site. That leaves
> log4j-sandbox and log4j-attic as malcontents to figure out. Is log4j-attic
> wanted at all? It's not writeable currently, so might be something to
> archive.
>
> For the migration I think we should just treat them as subprojects and let
> you guys handle any moves later on. What do you think?
>
>> One thing I was wondering in regards to the sandbox, should we have a
>> sandbox per project or maybe a top level sandbox that more people can
>> play in .
>
> As a fellow umbrella chair, I'm increasingly in favour of a sandbox for
> the whole TLP. That way it's much easier for the PMC to manage and isn't
> left to each individual subproject.
>
> Hen
>
>