logging-log4cxx-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Bartnikowski" <sbartnikow...@barkinglizards.com>
Subject RE: Most stable version of log4cxx?
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:51:23 GMT
Platforms...I should correct myself. I've got activated, licensed systems
running FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, and Mac OS X Server. 

I have previously used trial versions of SUSE Enterprise and Red Hat
Enterprise to make sure my product was compatible with the enterprise
editions. The trial licenses have probably expired by now. 

As for my Fedora box, it got cannibalized a few months ago, but the new
hardware is sitting in my office waiting to be reinstalled.

Really, I was just trying to say that my product supports all of those
different platforms and that I should invest some time into log4cxx if I
want a reliable logging system on all of those platforms.

That being said, yes, I am willing to help out as time permits with testing
on the platforms I have available: FreeBSD, openSUSE, White Box, Mac OS X
Server, and Fedora, when I revive that machine.

Btw Curt, Mac OS X provides some nice profiling tools in the
Developer/Applications/Performance Tools folder if you want more options. If
we can get the build issues worked out on that platform, it would be pretty
easy for me to profile log4cxx in use with an app.

So please keep us informed as we're needed.


-----Original Message-----
From: Curt Arnold [mailto:carnold@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:17 PM
To: Log4CXX User
Subject: Re: Most stable version of log4cxx?

On Dec 6, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Stephen Bartnikowski wrote:

> Hey Curt,
> What's the testing process? How do we the users get involved on that 
> and what sort of committment do we need to make?
> I think it's important I eke out some testing time out of my schedule 
> to help out on that front, since, hey I'm using developer builds of 
> log4cxx on FreeBSD, openSUSE, SUSE Enterprise, Fedora, Red Hat 
> Enterprise, White Box, and I want to bring it over to Mac OS X Server.

That is a nice set of platforms that compliments the ones that I test on.  I
currently test on Ubuntu 6.06 and 7.10 on i386 and x86_64, Mac OS/X and Win
2K with VC6 and VC7.  I've got a Windows Vista x86_64 that I need to get
Visual Studio 2008 up and running on to test Win64 builds.  All running as
VM's under VMWare Fusion.  I'd like to have Solaris using gcc and Sun Studio
in my collection of VMs, but struggled on previous attempts on setting up a
Solaris VM in assembling all the needed software.

> As for the voting process, is there a process there too? Do we need to 
> subscribe to general@logging.apache.org to participate?

The requirements for an Apache release process is described in the following
documents (ordered in most binding to least binding)


The outline of the process would be that a release candidate is prepared
from a SVN tag and placed at http://people.apache.org/builds for review and
a vote is called on log4cxx-dev and general@logging.apache.org
  which is open at least 72 hours.  The Logging Services Guidelines
prescribe distinct votes by the subproject (log4cxx) and LS PMC, but those
have been held simultaneously in previous log4j releases since it ends up as
two votes by almost the same set of people.  LS PMC members have the only
binding votes and at least 3 votes in favor from PMC members are required.
Other voters are desired, but only advisory.  To get that many votes from
the PMC will mean convincing members whose primary interest is log4j,
log4net or Chainsaw to cross lines and vet our release, so the more advisory
votes on the release would allow the PMC members to with confidence focus on
just the legal and procedural requirements.  If there is a community in
favor of a release candidate, then working through the procedural and
political issues should be achievable.  If there isn't a community, then it
is likely stuck.

On Dec 6, 2007, at 9:25 AM, renny.koshy@rubixinfotech.com wrote:

> Stephen -
> Very good question... I have an offshore dev team who may be able to 
> throw in some time testing, assuming there are **documented** tests to 
> run.  They are definitely not too good on "ad-hoc" style testing.

There are a couple of classes of "testing" that I envisioned:

a) build and unit test testing on different platforms/compiler combinations

This type of testing would check that log4cxx builds and passes unit tests
on a variety of platforms and compiler variations and that the INSTALL file
properly describes the build process.  The ideal persons for this type of
testing have a variety of build platforms already available and could give a
pass/no-pass in just a few minutes.

b) Release reproducibility testing

Confirm that an identical or near identical release can be prepared from the
SVN.  For log4j, the release build environment has been a specific
configuration of Ubuntu 6.06-1 and with the exception of  
timestamps within the zip files, releases are bit-for-bit identical.   
Before I prep a release candidate, I'll confirm that I can repeat it.   
It would be good for someone else to confirm that they were also able to
reproduce the release.

c) Unit tests using diagnostic tools

I'll run the unit tests under valgrind before prepping the release
candidate.  Anyone who has Purify, BoundsChecker or other tool who wants to
take a spin would be appreciated.  Anyone with a real app who can profile
log4cxx would also be appreciated.

d) Application testing

Sanity tests of someone who has an non-trivial app that can report would be

None of these seem like things that could be effectively out-sourced.

On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Andrew Phu wrote:

> Wow!
> I work in a Windows environment.  Are there any instructions on build 
> and test?
> Thanks,
> An

Check INSTALL and if it leaves any gaps ask on the list.  The release would
contain at least VC6 project files produced from Ant+cpptasks, but for now
you have to generate those on your own.

View raw message