The release vote has passed with +1 votes from Remko Popma, Ralph Goers, and
Carter Kozak. No other votes were cast.
I will continue with the release process.
Ralph
+1 from me, if there are issues on java 11 we can release another build. I
agree that we should put some time into getting CI running on both minimum and
maximum supported jvms, but that doesn't need to block this release. I have no
reason to believe that 2.12.0 has regressed from 2.11.2, and I
Oops. I jumped the gun. There are still a little less than 8 hours before 72
hours will have elapsed.
Ralph
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> For the record, here is my +1. 72 hours has elapsed but one more vote is
> needed for the release to proceed.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On
For the record, here is my +1. 72 hours has elapsed but one more vote is
needed for the release to proceed.
Ralph
> On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.12.0, the next version of the Log4j 2
> project.
>
> Please download, test, and cast your
Ok, I see that it's already tested right there. Then it really is safe
to add an assumeThat() to the test that uses reflection to access the
deprecated API. That test can be safely ignored once the deprecated
API is removed since we already test compatibility with the
replacement API.
On Fri, 28 J
It is not abandoned; it is in need of more developers. One of the more
active developers of that project is currently ill, however, and most
of the rest of us here aren't that familiar with .NET. I do have
intentions to try and make a release soon, though, but I'm not that
familiar with the codebas
Is it abandoned, why no one responds for any review or contribution
questions?
Regards,
Kabilan
StackLocatorTest in log4j-api-java9 has some tests to validate the Java 9
StackLocator is working. You could add code that uses StackWalker right now if
you want.
Ralph
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 6:37 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that. The failing test is one that I wrote long
Thanks for clarifying that. The failing test is one that I wrote long ago
back when I thought they’d never remove the internal class, and the point
of the test is to ensure the behavior of the caller class algorithm matches
the internal API behavior. Realistically, a Java 9+ version of that test
wo
What is missing is the patch to the test that Matt provided. I tried applying
his changes manually and the test still failed for me. The problem is the test
is trying to use a class that doesn’t exist in Java 11. The “fix” is to have
unit automatically ignore those tests when the classes don’t e
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:25 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Ah! You can force compilation to be skipped with '-Dmaven.main.skip' so
> you can 'compile' and 'install' jars with Java 8 and then run 'mvn test
> -Dmaven.main.skip' with Java 11 which gives me:
>
> [INFO] Running org.apache.logging.log4j.uti
Ah! You can force compilation to be skipped with '-Dmaven.main.skip' so you
can 'compile' and 'install' jars with Java 8 and then run 'mvn test
-Dmaven.main.skip' with Java 11 which gives me:
[INFO] Running org.apache.logging.log4j.util.StackLocatorUtilTest
WARNING: sun.reflect.Reflection.getCalle
12 matches
Mail list logo
