Re: [log4cxx] Release time?

If you got a bunch of things, go for it. I am huge fan of „release early, often“ On Fri, Sep 27, 2024, at 01:17, Robert Middleton wrote: > Is there anything that people are looking for in a new release? We've > got a good bunch of changes ready, so I figure it's about time to do a > new release.

[log4cxx] Release time?

Is there anything that people are looking for in a new release? We've got a good bunch of changes ready, so I figure it's about time to do a new release. -Robert Middleton

Re: [log4cxx] Release review kit

+1 I have: - checked the SHA512 checksums - checked for unexpected changes in the list of files in the 1.2.0.tar.gz archive compared to the 1.1.0.tar.gz release archive - built on Windows using each compressed archive (using two conan recipes) - built and tested a suite of applications using log4c

Re: [log4cxx] Release review kit

Thanks for the prompt response Robert. Appreciated the pointers. Log4cxx docs are indeed helpful. But a little bit more guidance in the vote email could be helpful. See that two other people (Piotr and Matt) quickly reviewed the release after my email sharing the steps I followed

Re: [log4cxx] Release review kit

1. staging website was in the email 2/3: I use this script to verify things. Feel free to adapt for your own purposes: https://gist.github.com/rm5248/b2abba4bb4f1d9cf518be49d064a0be1 4. Build instructions are on the website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4cxx/latest_stable/build-cmake.html

[log4cxx] Release review kit

I would really appreciate a "review kit" for voting on log4cxx releases: 1. Where is the staging website? 2. How can I verify the checksum? 3. How can I verify the signatures? 4. How can I build and test the sources? (For inspiration, you can check out the review kit we use for Java-b

Re: [log4cxx] Release time?

If there aren't any objections, I will plan to do a release in a week or so. I'm not aware of any issues that need to be fixed, so having a new release for a new year seems like a good idea. -Robert Middleton On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 9:53 AM Robert Middleton wrote: > > It's been a bit over 6 mon

[log4cxx] Release time?

It's been a bit over 6 months since the last release, is it time for a new release? There aren't many new features that would impact a lot of people, but a good number of maintenance fixes. -Robert Middleton

Re: [log4cxx] Release time?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Freitag, 25. März 2022 um 02:45 schrieben Sie: > I'm thinking it may be about time for a release in order to fix a number of > the issues that have been fixed since 0.12.0.[...] Sounds good to me. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Thorsten Schöning -- AM-SoFT IT-Service -

[log4cxx] Release time?

I'm thinking it may be about time for a release in order to fix a number of the issues that have been fixed since 0.12.0. The only thing left to do at this point is a relatively minor issue with documentation, and to update the ABI checks so that it doesn't fail anymore via github actions. The cu

Re: [LOG4CXX] Release log4cxx 0.12.0-RC2

Guten Tag Patrick Mills, am Montag, 3. Mai 2021 um 20:20 schrieben Sie: > I'm seeing lots of warnings in VS 2019. Wondering if these should be > disabled or a note added about ignoring them. I see the same errors in the same IDE and in my opinion neither of both should be done. All of those indi

Re: [LOG4CXX] Release log4cxx 0.12.0-RC2

I honestly don't know how important these warnings are - I don't do much on Windows. As far as I'm aware the declspec should be #defined correctly, could that have something to do with it? -Robert Middleton On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 PM Patrick Mills wrote: > > Anyone else building DLLs in Win

[LOG4CXX] Release log4cxx 0.12.0-RC2

Anyone else building DLLs in Windows environment? I'm seeing lots of warnings in VS 2019. Wondering if these should be disabled or a note added about ignoring them. Or perhaps I'm doing something wrong in my cmake build: cmake -DCMAKE_GENERATOR_PLATFORM=x64 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INS

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

As long as the classes that you are trying to cast to/from descend from log4cxx::Object, the cast should work fine. The aliasing constructor for std::shared_ptr means that both shared_ptrs point at the same control block for the shared pointer, so the object is the same; I'll add some notes about

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Yes, your fancy new cast function looks like a better approach. Should the note mention it uses the aliasing constructor std::shared_ptr or is it always going to be safe with log4cxx::Object pointers? On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:54 AM Robert Middleton wrote: > Yes, adding a note about casting wou

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Yes, adding a note about casting would be a good idea. Note that there is a log4cxx::cast function that should handle this for you - I believe that this is more reliable than using dynamic_cast, especially across DLL boundaries. It should also properly do the shared_ptr portion(so that you can ha

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Hi Robert, I suggest adding the following to 'change-report-gh.md' Migrating from 0.11.0 - Code changes are required for log4cxx pointer downcasting. The automatic cast performed by the log4cxx 0.11 smart pointer assign operator is no longer supported. For example:

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Samstag, 17. April 2021 um 02:09 schrieben Sie: > If you're able to test the PR that I just did, that would be helpful: > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/63 Stephen, you can't be chosen for review in GitHub, the dialog simply doesnm't find you, even t

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

If you're able to test the PR that I just did, that would be helpful: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/63 All of the tests pass so it's probably good, but an extra set of eyes is helpful. -Robert Middleton On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:32 AM Stephen Webb wrote: > > > Or maybe we just

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

> Or maybe we just need something like LOG4CXX_SOURCE_DIR? yes, I like that idea - something we control. Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Also, question for Thorsten: are you comfortable closing PR #22 at this point? There's been no activity on it for a year at this point, and it seems like the resolution we came up with was "don't do anything". -Robert Middleton On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:27 PM Robert Middleton wrote: > > > Using

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

> Using ${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR} instead of a relative path creates a problem > when including the log4cxx root directory from a higher level > CMakeLists.txt. CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR is (inconveniently) set where the top-most > CMakeLists.txt file resides. > > You are using ${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR} in src/main

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Hi Robert, Using ${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR} instead of a relative path creates a problem when including the log4cxx root directory from a higher level CMakeLists.txt. CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR is (inconveniently) set where the top-most CMakeLists.txt file resides. You are using ${CMAKE_SOURCE_DIR} in src/main

Re: [log4cxx] Release Prep

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Dienstag, 13. April 2021 um 04:09 schrieben Sie: > Before I go and do a release of log4cxx, are there any issues that may > need to be taken care of before the next release?[...] Including the latest PR makes sense, the more docs the better. :-) https://github.com/

[log4cxx] Release Prep

Before I go and do a release of log4cxx, are there any issues that may need to be taken care of before the next release? Otherwise, if there are no objections, I'll call for a release vote here shortly for version 0.12.0. -Robert Middleton

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Hi Thorsten, Would you consider a PR that updated the failing tests with code to check for the required programmes? We could then output a failure message that informed the user why the test does not work. On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 8:57 PM Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, >

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

I guess I'm viewing this as an "optional" test - we know that the test is going to fail(because e.g. we don't have gzip installed), so there's no reason to run the test. If gzip is installed, then the test should run and pass appropriately. I definitely agree that developers should have all tests

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2020 um 14:54 schrieben Sie: > So perhaps the best solution is based a little bit off of Stephen's > earlier PR(#18[1]), but instead of compiling out the code that depends > on gzip we make the test more granular(one test for rolling zip, one > t

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:24 AM Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Am I correct that you are using JDK 11 already? Because I'm running > into problems when executing Maven in my UB 16.04 with JDK 8 setup a > while ago. > Correct, Java 11 and Maven 3.6.3 for me. I'm on Debian 10, so Java 11 is readily av

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Hi Ralph, Change your current directory to the cmake build directory (the directory with CMakeCache.txt) before running ctest. On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:33 AM Ralph Goers wrote: > I found ctest at target/dependency/cmake/bin but when I run it I get > > No tests were found!!! > > I don’t see a d

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2020 um 23:44 schrieben Sie: > No, I used the release_prepare.sh to generate it, since it's my > understanding that is the script that should do that. It is, that means the site is not part of the release anymore after removing the ANT-parts and i

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

> How did you create those archives? I guess you didn't use the created > release_*-scripts, but "make dist dist-zip" again? No, I used the release_prepare.sh to generate it, since it's my understanding that is the script that should do that. I'm not sure if the autotools still work at this point

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

I found ctest at target/dependency/cmake/bin but when I run it I get No tests were found!!! I don’t see a directory named “package” so I am assuming you meant something else. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2020, at 11:56 PM, Stephen Webb wrote: > > Could you re-run that test by typing > > ctest -R str

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Thanks, I hadn’t seen that page. Ralph > On Jul 15, 2020, at 1:28 AM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > > Guten Tag Ralph Goers, > am Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2020 um 08:36 schrieben Sie: > >> [...]That said, I don’t see anyplace on the log4cxx web site that >> even states what platforms it supports.[...]

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Guten Tag Stephen Webb, am Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2020 um 05:54 schrieben Sie: > Thorsten did not accept my pull request. > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/18 And I still won't, the necessary tools to make them succeed can easily be provided for Windows as well: > C:\Program Files (x8

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2020 um 04:16 schrieben Sie: > As of this point, do the zip/tar.gz files contain everything required for > release? Is there anything that needs to be added? I want to try and help > if there's something that's missing. How did you create those

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Guten Tag Ralph Goers, am Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2020 um 08:36 schrieben Sie: > [...]That said, I don’t see anyplace on the log4cxx web site that > even states what platforms it supports.[...] There's the following table, which at least gives some hints. Besides that, we shouldn't start a new discuss

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

After adding that directory to the path as well as the corresponding apr-util directory I was able to get the build to run. Everything successfully compiled but I got 1 test failure. Start 19: streamtestcase 19/60 Test #19: streamtestcase .***Exception: SegFault 2

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Could you re-run that test by typing ctest -R streamtestcase --output-on-failure in the build directory (in package if you used maven to build) On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:37 PM Ralph Goers wrote: > I should add that the while there is nothing that mandates the PMC require > builds to pass to ap

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

I should add that the while there is nothing that mandates the PMC require builds to pass to approve a release, it would be unusual to approve one where building on supported platforms fail without understanding whether the test failures are critical or not. That said, I don’t see anyplace on th

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

If 'brew install apr' does not put a link to that apr-1-config in a directory on your path, src/cmake/Find*.cmake should be made to use 'brew --prefix'. Could you raise an issue please? On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:22 PM Ralph Goers wrote: > Yes, it is at /usr/local/Cellar/apr/1.7.0/libexec/bin/

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Yes, it is at /usr/local/Cellar/apr/1.7.0/libexec/bin/. Ralph > On Jul 14, 2020, at 11:14 PM, Stephen Webb wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > Could you tell me if your Mac has the script "apr-1-config" installed? > > The src/cmake/FindApr.cmake in log4cxx expects the apr installation to > create that s

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Hi Ralph, Could you tell me if your Mac has the script "apr-1-config" installed? The src/cmake/FindApr.cmake in log4cxx expects the apr installation to create that script and it calls it (passing --includedir) to set APR_INCLUDE_DIR with the output On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Ralph Goers wr

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

I don’t see anything wrong with those files. They are the same two archives provided in the last release. I tried building them on my Mac but it gets an error CMake Error at target/dependency/cmake/share/cmake-3.16/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:146 (message): APR_INCLUDE_DIR

Re: [log4cxx] Release Testing

Hi Robert, I believe the failures are due to gzip,sed and zip programs not being available. My preference was to exclude those tests when the program was not available to prevent exactly the problem you encountered. Thorsten did not accept my pull request. https://github.com/apache/logging-log4c

[log4cxx] Release Testing

I went and tested the current version of log4cxx, and at least on Linux I don't have any failures. There are a bunch of failures on the Windows side, but I don't know enough about windows to know where to start to debug those. The tests that failed: 90% tests passed, 6 tests failed out of 60 Tot

Re: [log4cxx] Release

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Mittwoch, 1. August 2018 um 04:04 schrieben Sie: > Hey all, any updates on any releases for log4cxx? Sorry, but no, I'm not working on any. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Thorsten Schöning -- Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de AM-SoFT IT-Sys

[log4cxx] Release

Hey all, any updates on any releases for log4cxx? I know there was a push a few months ago to try and get it out but I haven't heard anything else since then. -Robert Middleton

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Hi, Sorry for being late for the party (I was just checking if there is a new release for liblog4cxx, which I would really apprecicate when I came about this thread) Robert Middleton wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2017 19:11:09 -0700: > It's more of an expected behavior - when people download an autotool

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Dominik Psenner wrote: > If xx&&yy&&zz is complicated why not ship a makefile with an install target? > > On 25 Jul 2017 9:16 a.m., "Thorsten Schöning" wrote: > >> Guten Tag Robert Middleton, >> am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017 um 02:28 schrieben Sie: >> >> > As far as

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

If xx&&yy&&zz is complicated why not ship a makefile with an install target? On 25 Jul 2017 9:16 a.m., "Thorsten Schöning" wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017 um 02:28 schrieben Sie: > > > As far as I'm aware, the configure.sh is not platform-dependent, > > It is in

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2017 um 02:28 schrieben Sie: > As far as I'm aware, the configure.sh is not platform-dependent, It is in a sense that it's arbitrary old code generated on my platform while obviously each other platform could generate better fitting one on that pl

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Samstag, 22. Juli 2017 um 23:44 schrieben Sie: > >> I tried to verify with: gpg --verify apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz.asc >> apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz >> but gpg couldn't find the public key - do I nee

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Samstag, 22. Juli 2017 um 23:44 schrieben Sie: > I tried to verify with: gpg --verify apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz.asc > apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz > but gpg couldn't find the public key - do I need to import a special key at > all? That depends on GPG I guess, is

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

I just had a quick look at the files, and I noticed the following potential problems: I tried to verify with: gpg --verify apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz.asc apache-log4cxx-0.11.0.tar.gz but gpg couldn't find the public key - do I need to import a special key at all? There's no configure script in

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2017 um 23:57 schrieben Sie: > I noticed that you uploaded some files to > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4cxx/, are those for > review yet or not? Not "officially", was just testing some scripts and couldn't decide if it's wo

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Thorsten, I noticed that you uploaded some files to https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4cxx/, are those for review yet or not? -Robert Middleton On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > 1. I think a PMC has to commit the key to the file. > > 4. All sounds reasonable

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

1. I think a PMC has to commit the key to the file. 4. All sounds reasonable to me. 5. Normally we'd stage artifacts on Nexus. However, as we're not putting C++ stuff on Maven Central, I don't think that's right. I found this svn repo that looks p

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Guten Tag Matt Sicker, am Freitag, 7. Juli 2017 um 22:41 schrieben Sie: > 1. You should add it to the logging project's KEYS file. I think I was one > of the last keys added to the file. I don't have write access to dist/release. Should I ask someone for write access or is someone else committing

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

>From what I remember, when I tried this before I had a problem building with ant because of dependencies, which is I think what it's using now for release. PR#2 on Github fixes this to just use shell executions with Maven, although if it's working for you currently then I don't see a need to chan

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

That is a great suggestion! Ralph > On Jul 7, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > You might want to clone the Log4j 2 build wiki and replace the Git and Java > parts with your build system and language specific parts. > > Gary > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > >

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

You might want to clone the Log4j 2 build wiki and replace the Git and Java parts with your build system and language specific parts. Gary On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > 1. You should add it to the logging project's KEYS file. I think I was one > of the last keys added to

Re: [log4cxx] Release process releated questions

1. You should add it to the logging project's KEYS file. I think I was one of the last keys added to the file. 2. I don't know of any C++ projects distributed through Maven Central. There are projects written mostly in C or C++ that bind to Java which are on MC, though. 3. I'm not exactly sure on

[log4cxx] Release process releated questions

Hi all, I'm working on a release for log4cxx and have some questions about the process itself: 1. KEYS in dist-repo There's a KEYS file at the root of our dist-repo, do I need to get added there with my signing key? I've added it wherever the docs told me, KEYS in project repo, home.apache.org,

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

I'd love to see a build simplification here, and CMake has been gathering momentum for many years now, so it sounds reasonable to me from a high level at least. On 24 April 2017 at 07:00, Robert Middleton wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Thorsten Schöning > wrote: > > Guten Tag Robert

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Montag, 24. April 2017 um 03:03 schrieben Sie: > >> I have tested this on both Linux and Windows. If people are OK with >> CMake, I can make a PR from this branch. > > At least I am, especially looking at

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Montag, 24. April 2017 um 03:03 schrieben Sie: > I have tested this on both Linux and Windows. If people are OK with > CMake, I can make a PR from this branch. At least I am, especially looking at the time you invested already and the results of the former discussi

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Robert Middleton wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Schöning > wrote: >> Guten Tag Robert Middleton, >> am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie: >> >>> That's correct, there's no need for ant at this point >> >> So we are dropping Ant and

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie: > >> That's correct, there's no need for ant at this point > > So we are dropping Ant and deleting it altogether? I can't remember a > clear outcome of our f

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 18:27 schrieben Sie: > That's correct, there's no need for ant at this point So we are dropping Ant and deleting it altogether? I can't remember a clear outcome of our former discussions. :-) This way we'll loose entire support for buildin

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Guten Tag Robert Middleton, > am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 02:48 schrieben Sie: > >> A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried >> to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but >> I've tak

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Freitag, 21. April 2017 um 02:48 schrieben Sie: > A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried > to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but > I've taken another look at it recently and I think that I have got it > wor

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Potentially - it was quite finicky to get running. Depending on how much access there is, it may not be feasible, as there are other dependencies needed to build. From master, you need not only all of the autotools, but also APR in order to compile. It should be possible to simply build APR in t

Re: [log4cxx] Release?

Can we get that Jenkins job set up on builds.a.o? On 20 April 2017 at 19:48, Robert Middleton wrote: > A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried > to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but > I've taken another look at it recently and I think

[log4cxx] Release?

A few months ago, I took a look at the release for log4cxx and tried to get it to work properly; I didn't have much luck at the time, but I've taken another look at it recently and I think that I have got it working. It's rather ugly, since the POM at this point is only used to call out to autotoo