These tests have been removed.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Remko Popma wrote:
> Matt is right on all counts. The tests can be removed since picocli is
> tested in its own project, and when we split the modules it can be moved
> out of core into the tools module.
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 2018,
Matt is right on all counts. The tests can be removed since picocli is tested
in its own project, and when we split the modules it can be moved out of core
into the tools module.
> On Mar 12, 2018, at 8:03, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Is that test copied from picocli? If so, I’m not sure what th
Is that test copied from picocli? If so, I’m not sure what the value is
there anyways since it’s already tested in its own project. As for why it’s
included, it won’t need to be once all the command line tools are separated
(this includes custom loggers and levels besides just log receivers and
wha
I’m not sure what you are thinking.
Ralph
> On Mar 11, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Could it be a Maven toolchain that is misconfigured?
>
> Gary
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 13:01 Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I should also add that this test is not failing on the MacBook Pro that I
>
Could it be a Maven toolchain that is misconfigured?
Gary
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 13:01 Ralph Goers wrote:
> I should also add that this test is not failing on the MacBook Pro that I
> use to perform releases. It is failing on a MacBook Pro that is about 4
> years newer. But both are running the
I should also add that this test is not failing on the MacBook Pro that I use
to perform releases. It is failing on a MacBook Pro that is about 4 years
newer. But both are running the latest version of High Sierra and should be
configured similarly. The only major difference is that I use Java 8
I can’t answer that except to say that I don’t think that will change for
2.11.0. I have no idea why we have anything to do with the command line in
Log4j.
Ralph
> On Mar 11, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Do we still even need Picocli in the core? (This whole time I thought it
>
Do we still even need Picocli in the core? (This whole time I thought it
was "picoli")
Gary
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 12:06 Ralph Goers wrote:
> I do not know why but now on one of my MacBooks the 2.x build is failing
> with
>
> [INFO] Running org.apache.logging.log4j.core.tools.picocli.CommandLin
I do not know why but now on one of my MacBooks the 2.x build is failing with
[INFO] Running org.apache.logging.log4j.core.tools.picocli.CommandLineTest
[ERROR] Tests run: 199, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 4, Time elapsed: 0.802
s <<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.logging.log4j.core.tools.picocli.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> I have created the release notes for 2.11.0. Please review them.
>
> I have built the 2.11.0 web site locally and am noticing the following
> problems:
>
> The javadoc page does not list jdbc-dbc2, jpa, or liquibase.
> The link on the javadco p
This link is still a 404 after approximately 404 years:
https://rgoers.github.io/log4j2-site/dependencies.html
Not sure how we can disable it since there are no dependencies in
log4j-parent.
On 8 March 2018 at 22:54, Gary Gregory wrote:
> The main page shows "h3" in the heading text "h3 Integra
The main page shows "h3" in the heading text "h3 Integrating with
Application Servers"
I'll review some more tomorrow.
Gary
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> I have created the release notes for 2.11.0. Please review them.
>
> I have built the 2.11.0 web site locally and am
I have created the release notes for 2.11.0. Please review them.
I have built the 2.11.0 web site locally and am noticing the following problems:
The javadoc page does not list jdbc-dbc2, jpa, or liquibase.
The link on the javadco page for MongoDB results in a 404. I suspect because
there should
13 matches
Mail list logo
