Re: AbstractLogger losing ThreadContext map

If you are using SLF4J to add to the MDC, the classes in log4j-slf4j-impl will update Log4j’s ThreadContext (a ThreadLocal Map) under the covers. Regardless of what API you use for logging, when they are bridged to log4j-core it will locate the ThreadContext and retrieve whatever is in it. Wha

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

Note that you can also browse the workspaces for the Windows and Ubuntu builds to go see what happened. In particular, the workspace for log4j-osgi on Ubuntu: https://builds.apache.org/job/log4j/job/master/53/execution/node/17/ws/log4j-osgi/ (might need to log in to see that). On Fri, 17 Apr 2020

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

Oh, and the build finished because I added the "-fae" (fail at end) maven flag so we could get a full test report each time rather than an abbreviated one. On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 16:10, Matt Sicker wrote: > > https://builds.apache.org/job/log4j/job/master/53/testReport/ > > Would be nice to get t

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

https://builds.apache.org/job/log4j/job/master/53/testReport/ Would be nice to get this email that Jenkins sends to include the list of failed tests, but it's all there at least. On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 15:28, Ralph Goers wrote: > > What test? From what I could see the build had finished. > > Ral

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

What test? From what I could see the build had finished. Ralph > On Apr 17, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > This test has been flaky on Jenkins. I used the simplest pipeline > possible here. If these failures are specific to a particular Jenkins > node, then that might be something we

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

I'll work on writing up some documentation about how this pipeline works over the weekend. On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 13:02, Matt Sicker wrote: > > This test has been flaky on Jenkins. I used the simplest pipeline > possible here. If these failures are specific to a particular Jenkins > node, then th

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

This test has been flaky on Jenkins. I used the simplest pipeline possible here. If these failures are specific to a particular Jenkins node, then that might be something we can adjust. Otherwise, this test might be buggy. On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 12:43, Ralph Goers wrote: > > Matt, > > Once again

Re: Jenkins job log4j/master#53 failed

Matt, Once again the build is failing for no reason I can understand. How can we maintain this if you are the only one who knows how it works? Ralph > On Apr 17, 2020, at 1:09 AM, Mr. Jenkins wrote: > > > There is a build failure in log4j/master. > > Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/log

Re: [log4j] Makr Java 8 dep with version bump

See the requirements section on the home page. http://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/#Requirements . Ralph > On Apr 17, 2020, at 6:02 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:53 AM Carter Kozak wrote: > >> I had thought we update

AbstractLogger losing ThreadContext map

Hey, So I've just switched my logging framework to Log4j2 to leverage it's support for MDC. Given that I've used a mixture of SLF4J and JUL log messages within my code I've decided to leverage Log4j ability to convert JUL log messages to Log4j2 messages. I've set the following flag to my appl

Re: [log4j] Makr Java 8 dep with version bump

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:53 AM Carter Kozak wrote: > I had thought we updated to java 8 for 2.13.0, but I may be mistaken. > You could very well be right but I do not see it here: https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/changes-report.html#a2.13.0 G > > -ck > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 08:49, G

Re: [log4j] Makr Java 8 dep with version bump

I had thought we updated to java 8 for 2.13.0, but I may be mistaken. -ck On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 08:49, Gary Gregory wrote: > Now that 2.x is on Java 8 (aka "The Ocho > "), I think the next release > label should be 2.14 instead of 2.13.2. > > Gary

[log4j] Makr Java 8 dep with version bump

Now that 2.x is on Java 8 (aka "The Ocho "), I think the next release label should be 2.14 instead of 2.13.2. Gary