Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

t;Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 6:22 PM >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > >Nothing has been released yet. This is what this cycle is for and frankly >after 11 months of not releasing while adding JSR330 and SLF4J it's to be >expected

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Mirko; Most of the time the core IT's fail, it seems to be related to stuff in your local settings.xml. Maybe try to just rename it and see how that works. Sometimes the artifact resolution gets stuck less core-it-suite/target/test-classes/mng-5135/log.txt will show you what happened to the buil

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

a release in such a bad state to be honest. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > - Original Message - >> From: Benson Margulies >> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg >> >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 3:04 PM >> Su

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Dec 8, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2012 09:32:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >> Hervé I will assume you're looking at this. Let me know if you need any >> help. > > yes, I'm working on it > from latest discussion, the ideal is: > > 1. compatibility: > for plu

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

ist > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 3:22 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > Le vendredi 7 décembre 2012 09:32:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >> Hervé I will assume you're looking at this. Let me know if you need any >> hel

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Le vendredi 7 décembre 2012 09:32:33 Jason van Zyl a écrit : > Hervé I will assume you're looking at this. Let me know if you need any > help. yes, I'm working on it from latest discussion, the ideal is: 1. compatibility: for plugin descriptors without information, don't expose core's slf4j-api,

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Lol. I think it will be really safer to have it off by default in 3.2 and we might change it in another version depending of the community feedback. But for all if that it won't be before 2013. - Arnaud Le 8 déc. 2012 à 13:24, Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > I fear meeting the millitant

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I fear meeting the millitant arch-Linux users running in strict C64 emulation. Maybe just enable colour by defalt for all fruity computers ? K Den 8. des. 2012 kl. 13:10 skrev "Arnaud Héritier" : > And windows which has a support near to the Amiga ;) > > - > Arnaud > > Le 8 déc. 2012 à

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

And windows which has a support near to the Amiga ;) - Arnaud Le 8 déc. 2012 à 12:55, Kristian Rosenvold a écrit : > Disable color by default in batch mode then. I suppose we could detect > is users are running AmigaOS or aix and disable by default there too. > > Kristian > > Den 8. des

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

In jenkins you have a Jansi plugin that interprets ANSI codes and create colors in output. I'm using it and it is working fine. For maven there was a customizable step to create colors in the console. We'll need to find a solution to not have a conflict. - Arnaud Le 8 déc. 2012 à 12:34,

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Disable color by default in batch mode then. I suppose we could detect is users are running AmigaOS or aix and disable by default there too. Kristian Den 8. des. 2012 kl. 12:34 skrev Chris Graham : > AIX still does not do well with ANSI style colour. > > And I wonder how Jenkins would cope parsi

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

AIX still does not do well with ANSI style colour. And I wonder how Jenkins would cope parsing the output. Seriously 2013 soon or not, don't break the output and introduce crap into the output stream. Sent from my iPhone On 08/12/2012, at 10:14 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > Seriously this

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Seriously this sounds like something you'd want to configure i. MAVEN_OPTS, so I'd be inclined to do color by default in 2012, soon 2013. K Den 8. des. 2012 kl. 11:14 skrev Chris Graham : > Which is what I thought. > > +1 to off by default then. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 08/12/2012, at 9:11

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Which is what I thought. +1 to off by default then. Sent from my iPhone On 08/12/2012, at 9:11 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code > > It adds some extras character that you'll see if the console doesn't > support it > > - > Arnaud > > Le 8 d

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code It adds some extras character that you'll see if the console doesn't support it - Arnaud Le 8 déc. 2012 à 11:03, Chris Graham a écrit : I'd like to know how it is implemented and what happens when it is run on a terminal that does not sup

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I'd like to know how it is implemented and what happens when it is run on a terminal that does not support it. -Chris Sent from my iPhone On 08/12/2012, at 8:54 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > +1 from me > > On Friday, 7 December 2012, Jesse McConnell wrote: > >> I sure hope colored logging

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

As christmas is near I just start wishing for WARN on the console and INFO going to target/maven.TIMESTAMP.log. The biggest problem I see: most often the SUTs in surefire executions just spoil the whole console log when testing error situations because no one uses a logback-test.xml. Regards Mirk

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

For me the most interesting is to grab warnings. Like you you cannot miss errors :-) The problem is that we cannot just display warnings because we loose the context where they occur (the module or any others details that might be in INFO level). Nowadays warnings are lost in too many logs and not

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Colour can grab your attention. Sometimes you don't want your attention grabbed. A build log is quite often in my opinion a bad place to grab your attention. That failure at the end will grab my attention just fine. There are times when I might like a colourised log... But more often I prefer to b

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Hello Kristian, I ran d2fc26066b3e5ceb7912b69ce360fa75a8d9a2bb of the maven-integration-testing project using the profiles and: a) did not see a big difference in runtime (mvn304 ~ 9:50, mvn310 ~10:29) b) had failing tests with 310 *and* 304. Apache Maven 3.0.4 (r1232337; 2012-01-17 09:44:56+0100

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

2012/12/7 Gary Gregory : > Do you still watch TV in black and white? ;) Hey, does your TV have *both* black and white ??? Kristian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Even if I like the colorized console and couldn't leave without it now I would probably vote in favor to have it off by default because : * It is difficult to define the default font color that won't be unreadable on the user console (white on white, ) * Like always, windows sucks and I didn't

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Well, then at least a property to be set in ~/.m2/settings.xml to switch colors on would be nice :-). I for one would be much more interested in introducing a switch which allows to suppress INFO but not WARN :-). Regards Mirko On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > +1 from

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

+1 from me On Friday, 7 December 2012, Jesse McConnell wrote: > I sure hope colored logging is off by default, I hate it :) > > -- > jesse mcconnell > jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am -1 on c

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Mark Struberg > wrote: > > > > > > good idea, Benson. > > > > > > Btw, this VOTE did not get enough +1 in more than a week. And this is > not > > > because not enough people took care if you look at the plenty of > comments &g

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

; > in the thread. > > > > 1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce a > new > > plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem > with > > that? > > > > Are there other proposals which might help increasi

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

ts in the thread. >>>>> >>>>> 1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce a >>>>> new plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem >>>>> with that? >>>>> >>>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

t; compatibility? > > > > 2.) what about the coloured logger with log4j2? I tried it locally and it > worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) > > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Benson Margulies > T

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

increasing backward compatibility? 2.) what about the coloured logger with log4j2? I tried it locally and it worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Benson Margulies To: Maven Developers List Cc: Sent: Friday

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

>> 2.) what about the coloured logger with log4j2? I tried it locally and it >>> worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) >>> >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> -

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

gger with log4j2? I tried it locally and it >>> worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) >>> >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

and it worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Benson Margulies To: Maven Developers List Cc: Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 Could we please find an appropriate subject line

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On 07.12.2012 18:52, Anders Hammar wrote: This still will not help Sonar today but we can also add some heuristics to help plugins like the Sonar plugin. If we inspect the dependencies and see SLF4J is there we can block SLF4J from the plugin's classloader. I'm not sure yet how this will work for

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On 07.12.2012 18:32, Jason van Zyl wrote: Kristian, > I'm going to look at problem with the logging while embedding and > Hervé wants to look at the SLF4J isolation. > > From what I understand in talking to Ceki, for each classloader SLF4J > can be initialized so it appears theoretically possib

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

>>>> 1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce a >> new plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem >> with that? >>>>> >>>>> Are there other proposals which might help increasing backward >

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

gt;>> > >>> 1.) Do people have any technical comment on my proposal to introduce a > new plugin-plugin flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem > with that? > >>> > >>> Are there other proposals which might help increasing backward > c

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

So, it sounds to me like this VOTE is withdrawn, since the RM thinks that there's a respin needed. It would be nice to see a formal email communicating this. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:41 PM, ceki wrote: > On 07.12.2012 02:34, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > >> One benefit is that it would hopefully fix

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On 07.12.2012 02:34, Jason van Zyl wrote: > One benefit is that it would hopefully fix the Sonar problem. But I'm > not sure what the exact behaviour of SLF4J is. Even if a plugin > blocked SLF4J entirely to use their own SLF4J setup, like in the Sonar > case, I think SLF4J is already loaded. Ce

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

flag for exposing slf4j? Is there any technical problem with >>> that? >>> >>> Are there other proposals which might help increasing backward >>> compatibility? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2.) what about the coloured logger wit

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

ith log4j2? I tried it locally and it >> worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >>> From: Benson Margulies >>> To: Maven Developers List >>

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

tried it locally and it >> worked great. What is the status? (Sorry if I missed something) >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >>> From: Benson Margulies >>> To: Maven Developers List

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

ecember 7, 2012 3:04 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > As I see it, the vote bogged down because Kristian found problems, and > I haven't seen clear evidence that those problems are sorted out. I'd > be happy to vote +1 wit

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

s the status? (Sorry if I missed something) > > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > - Original Message - >> From: Benson Margulies >> To: Maven Developers List >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 2:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Mav

Re: [DISCUSS] the art of logging - was: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

- Original Message - > From: Benson Margulies > To: Maven Developers List > Cc: > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 2:28 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > Could we please find an appropriate subject line for this debate, > unless you all are really discussing this de

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

gt; This is not fixed, this is broken imo. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: Daniel Kulp >> > To: Maven Developers List >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:49 PM >> > Subjec

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

is is not fixed, this is broken imo. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Daniel Kulp > > To: Maven Developers List > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > &

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

the maven logs which could be anywhere from a plugin point of view. This is not fixed, this is broken imo. LieGrue, strub - Original Message - > From: Daniel Kulp > To: Maven Developers List > Cc: > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: [VO

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

eady are now broken with > the current trunk. I cannot see how we can seriously release this to users > right now. > > LieGrue, > strub > > >> ________ >> From: Stephen Connolly >> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

__ > From: Stephen Connolly >To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg > >Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 12:48 PM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > >But not all of those *need to*. At least until now they have needed to, but >going forward they may

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

ruberg wrote: > basically all stuff which integrates maven does *funky logging stuff*... > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Anders Hammar > > > To: Maven Developers List > > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 7:25 AM > >

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

basically all stuff which integrates maven does *funky logging stuff*... - Original Message - > From: Anders Hammar > To: Maven Developers List > Cc: > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 7:25 AM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > >> I'm interested to help

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On 07.12.2012 07:25, Anders Hammar wrote: *If* we go this path, I think the default should be the other way around. I.e., the default would be to use core's slf4j and it's impl. So the plugin developer needs to do an active choice to go outside Maven's logging. Sure, this could imply problems wi

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Friday, 7 December 2012, Anders Hammar wrote: > > I'm interested to help working on adding a metadata to enable slf4j > > visibility > > from a plugin: by default, slf4j is not visible, plugins are expected to > > use > > plugin-api's Log. But if the plugin wants to use core's slf4j, he would >

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

> I'm interested to help working on adding a metadata to enable slf4j > visibility > from a plugin: by default, slf4j is not visible, plugins are expected to > use > plugin-api's Log. But if the plugin wants to use core's slf4j, he would be > able to add an annotation in the goal requiring shared c

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > I'm interested to help working on adding a metadata to enable slf4j > visibility > from a plugin: by default, slf4j is not visible, plugins are expected to use > plugin-api's Log. But if the plugin wants to use core's slf4j, he would be > ab

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I'm interested to help working on adding a metadata to enable slf4j visibility from a plugin: by default, slf4j is not visible, plugins are expected to use plugin-api's Log. But if the plugin wants to use core's slf4j, he would be able to add an annotation in the goal requiring shared core slf4j

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Minor problem, but I just noticed that wagon-http-2.3-shaded.jar and wagon-provider-api-2.3.jar include what looks like test-related files inside them. -- Regards, Igor On 12-12-03 11:10 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, Here is a link to Jira with 42 issues resolved: https://jira.codehaus.org/secu

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

My bad - looks like IntelliJ 12 turns on its new "compiler mode" by default which runs a separate VM for compilation - with a default heap size of 700mb - my machine found itself dying in a mess of 4gb swap which was messing with things. On a fresh reboot things seem much more like what I expe

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Did anything change in your build as Aether didn't change between now and the last release. The version of plexus-utils did change, maybe try swapping the version of plexus-utils and see if that helps. On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > Has anyone tried 3.1.0 with heavy use

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Has anyone tried 3.1.0 with heavy use of version ranges? I'm noticing my integration tests seem to now be taking a LONG time to resolve deps - about 15 elements all using ranges, of which the repository has something like 100+ versions of each. A thread dump of the process when its ju

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I don't think it will be hard to fix, it's just the use of a BOAS, setting stdout/err repeatedly and then using stdout for logging in SLF4J. Just need to track down the interactions and fix it. On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > Obviously if it doesnt affect m2e (and thi

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Obviously if it doesnt affect m2e (and this is known ?) its less of a problem. In that case it means it'll just be a PITA for those 10-or so projects that use verifier here at asf and any others. I am no fan of releasing a version I wouldn't want to use myself, so I think this needs to be fixed -

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

The severity of the issue is less 2012/12/4 Jason van Zyl : > Our build server appears out, and I wanted to get off my machine so I spun up > an EC2 instance and it is 3.1.x with SLF4J in embedded mode that appears to > be the problem. > > Obviously this affects people who embed, but won't affec

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Our build server appears out, and I wanted to get off my machine so I spun up an EC2 instance and it is 3.1.x with SLF4J in embedded mode that appears to be the problem. Obviously this affects people who embed, but won't affect CLI users. The major use case is m2e and it already uses SLF4J with

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

The core it's were running against 1.4-SNAPSHOT of the verifier and I had introduced a minor compatibility problem when adding generics which caused them to not compile. That is fixed on verifier trunk now. I just ran the following core it's, and they run lightning fast & razor sharp: mvn304 -Pe

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I'll do the same for the core ITs when I ran them against 3.0.3, 3.0.4 and master they all failed in embedded mode with the same problem. So your surefire ITs fork once using the embedder and use the special method in MavenCli that has this signature: public int doMain( String[] args, Strin

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

If I build m3 core at 22df629f9707e46cfabddd3d657757701bd64a76 the supplied testcase works. When I do git reset --hard 25669cfe131e19f152c87c1b250ffec0b30f8d26 to move 2 commits later in history, it stops working. git log 22df629f9707e46cfabddd3d657757701bd64a76..25669cfe131e19f152c87c1b250ffec

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

The failing test in question keeps the verifier at a fixed 1.3 version. But with 3.0.4 it is fully capable of producing the "log.txt" file in embedded mode. The only thing that changes in the supplied demonstration is the maven version. Embedded tests work *fine* in general but I think a lot of ve

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I believe this is the verifier that changed. The embedded tests don't work in general and I tried with Maven 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 andific the log output is not captured to a file which is what causes the test failures. For the tests that are looking specifically for things in the log.txt. On Dec 4,

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Please do not update the site plugin to 3.2. See . -- Christian Am 12/04/12 05:10, schrieb Jason van Zyl: > Hi, > > Here is a link to Jira with 42 issues resolved: > https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967 > >

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Greetings, On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-110/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.0/ Created https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5403 Continui

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

> When displaying mvn -version I got : > > Apache Maven 3.1.0 (rNON-CANONICAL_2012-12-03_20-03_jvanzyl; 2012-12-04 > 05:03:32+0100) > Maven home: /opt/maven > > I don't understand the revision, Any clue about it ? > MNG-5402 Working on it. Not a show stopper though in my opinion. /Anders > > t

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:10:41 -0800 Jason van Zyl wrote: When displaying mvn -version I got : Apache Maven 3.1.0 (rNON-CANONICAL_2012-12-03_20-03_jvanzyl; 2012-12-04 05:03:32+0100) Maven home: /opt/maven I don't understand the revision, Any clue about it ? thanks, tony. > Hi, > > Here is a

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

+1 non binding so far from my own tests. I suspect Kristian's comment is a -1 tho... Jason van Zyl 4 December 2012 5:10 PM Hi,Here is a link to Jira with 42 issues resolved:https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967Staging repo:https

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

To reproduce: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven-surefire.git cd maven-surefire mvn -DskipTests install cd surefire-integration-tests # ready to rock mvn304 -Dit.test=IncludesExcludesFromFileIT -Dverifier.forkMode=auto clean install # works less target/IncludesExcludesFromFileIT/includ

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

There is something wrong with logging in embedded mode; when runnin surefire tests with verifier I am no longer able to pick up log output from the running maven process: 2012/12/4 Anders Hammar : > Is the site updated? It says it was published Nov 15 and some info doesn't > seem to be up-to-da

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Is the site updated? It says it was published Nov 15 and some info doesn't seem to be up-to-date (m-war-p says v2.3 for default lifecycle bindings). /Anders On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a link to Jira with 42 issues resolved: > > https://jira.codehaus.

[VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Hi, Here is a link to Jira with 42 issues resolved: https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18967 Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-110/ The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here: https://repository

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On 11/28/2012 11:04 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: there are only few bug fixes For the affected users, MNG-5312 [1] is pretty serious. [1] https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5312 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@mave

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

st ; Mark Struberg > >Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 11:20 AM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > >Couldn't we use the shading plugin to not expose the original implementation >(logback, log4k, whatever ..) but a repackaged one to avoid conflicts with >plugins whic

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

inal Message - > > From: Benson Margulies > > To: Maven Developers List > > Cc: > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > > > At the end of the day, either Maven uses a standard logging API inside > >

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

iday, November 30, 2012 10:15 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > At the end of the day, either Maven uses a standard logging API inside > plugins, or it does not. Using a standard logging API has giant > advantages - but it can inconvenience people integrating complex code &g

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

At the end of the day, either Maven uses a standard logging API inside plugins, or it does not. Using a standard logging API has giant advantages - but it can inconvenience people integrating complex code via plugins. In this thread, there are two approaches to removing that inconvenience: a plugi

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Anything is possible but I honestly don't want to do it because I don't really think it's worth it. Just use SLF4J properly, that's your path. I don't think this is really that onerous and deprives developers of their liberty :-) So many systems use SLF4J and I don't think many of them allow mag

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Would it be possible to implement something (nasty and rather iki under the covers) along the lines of using say a MavenLoggerFactory.getLogger(Foo.class, ImplementationClass.class, String config). If this variation is used to get a Logger, use ClassWorlds or something to create a new classlo

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Fri, November 30, 2012 12:33 pm, Mark Struberg wrote: > >>I don't believe it's valid to just let everyone do whatever they want. > > Well, I think this is the fundamental point we disagree on. > Maven is not only a build system but also a container which runs user > specific stuff. And a contain

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

most part I believe what we have will work. > > LieGrue, > strub > >> >> From: Jason van Zyl >> To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg >> >> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:08 PM >> Subject:

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

to be proved wrong... LieGrue, strub > > From: Jason van Zyl >To: Maven Developers List ; Mark Struberg > >Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:08 PM >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > > > >On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > >Th

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

; LieGrue, > strub > > > > > - Original Message - >> From: Stephen Connolly >> To: Maven Developers List >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 >> >> What about the case where a plugin

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Stephen Connolly > To: Maven Developers List > Cc: > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:15 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0 > > What about the case where a plugin needs to work with both 3.0.4 and 3.1.0 > > Currently 3.0.4 does not provide either the api or an impl,

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > What about the case where a plugin needs to work with both 3.0.4 and 3.1.0 > If it's in 3.0.4 then you are using Mojo.getLog(), which is probably the ideal case, and this will work without change in 3.1.0. > Currently 3.0.4 does not pr

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

What about the case where a plugin needs to work with both 3.0.4 and 3.1.0 Currently 3.0.4 does not provide either the api or an impl, so I need both as a dependency.., I'm being a good boy, so my impl is custom to route through to o.a.m.p.Log and part of the plugin jar (because it makes most sen

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

For case 2) I would say only fork if your logging is know to interfere with standard SLF4J practices which I think would be rare. But I'll see how easy it is to implement a flag while I'm looking at this in general. On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:20 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I tend to agree. There

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I agree that the Sonar plugin is bogus and unrelated to the discussion at hand, and I accept your explanation that we're not, in fact, going to derail legitimate 'self-contained' plugins. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Nov 30, 2012, at 4:09 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >> That's the magic I would like to avoid. Anything is possible but I would >> prefer how a plugin author should integrate with our SLF4J logging. > > Here's the crux of the disagreement. To be clear, I'm not trying to > derail any 3.1.0

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

Hi All, In sonar-core, looking at the Logback class in the org.sonar.core.config package, you can find following lines: import ch.qos.logback.classic.LoggerContext; import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory; ... LoggerContext lc = (LoggerContext) LoggerFactory.getILoggerFactory(); Sonar is assuming that

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I tend to agree. There are two use-cases I see that a plugin has for > bundling a logging implementation: > > 1. They are wanting to shunt the logs from the build tool they are invoking > on to the user. Typically if they are being good pl

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

I tend to agree. There are two use-cases I see that a plugin has for bundling a logging implementation: 1. They are wanting to shunt the logs from the build tool they are invoking on to the user. Typically if they are being good plugins they just take the logging output and shunt it onto org.apach

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >>> >>> Currently I'm of the mind that if you make a Maven plugin that uses >>> something that employs SLF4J then the best practice is to only use the API >>> and let the host choos

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.1.0

On Nov 29, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >> Currently I'm of the mind that if you make a Maven plugin that uses >> something that employs SLF4J then the best practice is to only use the API >> and let the host choose the implementation, in our case Maven. Relying on >> SLF4J i

  1   2   >