Given that there have been no other responses I am going to close this vote. I
will create a new release candidate as soon as I can.
Ralph
> On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:23 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I just noticed that Jenkins also has a unit test failing in log4j-1.2-api.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Dec 10
I just noticed that Jenkins also has a unit test failing in log4j-1.2-api.
Ralph
> On Dec 10, 2019, at 8:06 AM, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> I'm planning to test and benchmark with several projects I'm responsible for
> today.
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, at 10:03, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Thanks Gary,
I'm planning to test and benchmark with several projects I'm responsible for
today.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, at 10:03, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Thanks Gary, although it would have been nice to have had feedback on the
> failing unit test in the 4 months since it has been in place instead of
> waiting
Thanks Gary, although it would have been nice to have had feedback on the
failing unit test in the 4 months since it has been in place instead of waiting
until after the release vote to test it.
Are any other PMC members planning on voting on the release or do I need to
create another release c
I'm not OK with that kind of workaround, as a user it does not inspire
confidence. I won't -1 though.
Gary
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:21 AM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> So add @Ignore to that one test.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 9, 2019, at 10:18 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that it pr
So add @Ignore to that one test.
Ralph
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 10:18 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> The problem is that it prevents from running a full build on Windows in
> sane manner. I can skip the tests but that does not give me confidence :-(
>
> Gary
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ralph
The problem is that it prevents from running a full build on Windows in
sane manner. I can skip the tests but that does not give me confidence :-(
Gary
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:49 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Having looked at the test it is checking for “\n\t” in the result. The
> test should not d
Having looked at the test it is checking for “\n\t” in the result. The test
should not do that. I will modify it but I don’t think that is a reason to
block the release, assuming it gets enough votes.
Ralph
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> OK, that test was added 2 days af
OK, that test was added 2 days after the last release in August. I guess that
means you haven’t done a full build since then?
Ralph
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 8:42 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Oh wait, I am looking at the wrong class. Let me check again.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Dec 9, 2019, at 8:40 PM, Ra
Oh wait, I am looking at the wrong class. Let me check again.
Ralph
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 8:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> That test class hasn’t been modified since the last release. I obviously
> don’t get that error on my Mac and I have run the build many times, so it
> must be something Wi
That test class hasn’t been modified since the last release. I obviously don’t
get that error on my Mac and I have run the build many times, so it must be
something Windows related. Is that the only problem you encountered with the
release?
Ralph
> On Dec 9, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Gary Gregory
I get this failure running 'mvn clean package':
[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR] LoggerTest.builder:69 Incorrect message 3
Expected: a string starting with " WARN Log4j rocks! java.lang.Throwable:
This is a test\n\tat
org.apache.logging.log4j.LoggerTest.builder(LoggerTest.java:65)"
but: was " WARN
This is a vote to release Log4j 2.13.0, the next version of the Log4j 2 project.
Please download, test, and cast your votes on the log4j developers list.
[] +1, release the artifacts
[] -1, don't release because...
The vote will remain open for 72 hours (or more if required). All votes are
welco
13 matches
Mail list logo
