On progress reports: sure, I'll try to keep this list updated On PRs: I'm happy to start helping once I've spent more time in the codebase (which I will have to do anyway), so that I can give better feedback.
-d On 2020-04-08 08:53:44, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: Sounds good. If you wouldn’t mind, it would be nice if you could provide progress reports on a regular schedule that works for you just so we know you are still working on it. Also, as you probably know we do get PRs and questions from time to time that none of us are comfortable answering. It would be great if you, or one of the others who has expressed an interest in Log4Net, could respond to them. Ralph > On Apr 7, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Thanks Matt > > To clarify my plans, I will: > 1. update the build system for log4net: I haven't seen any objection to using > node-based build scripts as I have for my own packages, so I'll head down > that path. Currently, I use those as a git submodule, but I'm quite close to > having them available as an npm package, so I'll complete that first, test on > my own code and, once I'm happy, use that in log4net, unless there are any > objections. I've generally found that, as powerful as git submodules are, > they cause confusion as a lot of people don't seem to understand how they > work, which is the reason I'm converting my gulp-tasks repo to an npm package > which can just be installed and run. > > I'm happy to use whatever works and everyone is comfortable with -- > personally, I'm quite comfortable with the infrastructure my scripts provide > and they're used by my current and previous employer for build, so they get > worked out multiple times per day. > > 2. I think that the suggestion to use Docker is a good one, as it would mean > that I don't have to place any burden on someone to ensure that build > dependencies are available at Jenkins. My Docker-fu is, however, feeble, so > I'm going to skill that up. Alternatively, if people are motivated to get a > release out sooner, setting up Docker can be delayed if the following > dependencies are available at the build host: > - node (preferably the current lts, 12, but 8+ should work) > - dotnet core sdk 3.1 > - .Net Framework 4.6.2 or higher (if a windows host) or Mono 5 (Linux / OSX > host) > In lieu of any communications to the contrary, I'll assume that getting > dependencies onto the build server is a less-desirable / impossible outcome, > so I'll be chasing the Docker route. > > 3. When 1 & 2 are ready, I will raise a PR against the log4net GitHub repo. > > I expect this might take a little while, so please bear with me. > > -d > > On 2020-04-07 17:48:50, Matt Sicker wrote: > Speaking of the Jenkins build, if you want to use Docker images to > create a build environment, that's also supported. > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:46, Ralph Goers wrote: >> >> You should feel free to change the build system in any way that makes it >> easier for people to perform a release. Ideally, it would be nice if it was >> something that could be automated from Jenkins, but that is not a >> requirement. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Apr 7, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> Ok, so would it be acceptable to change the build system altogether? Should >>> I create a PR using the build system (npm / node-based) that I use for my >>> projects? I'm happy to do so. >>> >>> -d >>> On 2020-04-07 17:39:31, Matt Sicker wrote: >>> We mostly develop on the JVM which has a fairly different build >>> system. Performing a release for the .net code seems to involve >>> multiple build tools, and our old CI setup for log4net is broken due >>> to nant no longer being included in our Jenkins nodes. Basically, the >>> only realistic release we can validate is a signed and checksummed >>> source archive. We need some .net developers to help create the binary >>> artifacts and verify they're good to distribute. We can help with the >>> logistics of distributing a copy of your public GPG key for signing >>> the artifacts, and we can handle committing the release artifacts to >>> the release repository. We'd also likely invite anyone who does such a >>> release to join the PMC so that they'd have the proper authorization >>> to perform all the release steps on their own (other than the vote >>> itself which we would all take part in). >>> >>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 09:18, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm glad to help -- not sure where though: >>>> >>>> I'm sure I could build (haven't actually done it) log4net and the >>>> associated package, and I could push that to nuget from my own machine, >>>> assuming that I had the credentials to do so. Releasing my own packages is >>>> the least work I have to do when I make changes -- I've automated into an >>>> npm script in NExpect and the PeanutButter packages, where that script >>>> builds, tests, increments package version, packs, pushes, tags and pushes >>>> the commit containing updated .nuspecs and the tag to github. >>>> >>>> I'm assuming there's something vastly different here? Are packages pushed >>>> by a CI server (eg the mentioned Jenkins?). Or is the problem simply that >>>> no-one actually knows where the build, sign and push steps are performed? >>>> I assume that the .snk in this solution is the one used to sign the >>>> package (though I would not have expected to find the snk there, because >>>> it allows anyone to sign a package as official). >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any idea where to start looking? I see build is done with >>>> Nant (I'm not familiar, but I can probably figure it out) -- other than >>>> that, what do we know about the process? If someone knows (or guesses) >>>> that it's happening at Jenkins, is there a way for me to assist with >>>> debugging that process? >>>> >>>> -d >>>> On 2020-04-07 16:08:06, Apache wrote: >>>> What you are seeing is exactly what I have been saying. The major problem >>>> is that none of the existing logging services committers know how to >>>> perform a release. We know there have been fixes committed that are >>>> needed. We just don’t know how to make them available. That is exactly why >>>> I said your focus should be getting a release built. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 10:15 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That sounds promising, and I'm aware that I'm probably being a little >>>>> annoying by now, but I've also noticed that the source package is version >>>>> is at 2.0.9 where the latest release package version is 2.0.8. That >>>>> version was bumped 3 years ago. In between the last release date and last >>>>> commits are commits including at least 2 PR merges (42 and 23 ), both of >>>>> which seen significant. >>>>> >>>>> I guess what I'm asking is what's holding up the 2.0.9 release? If I'm to >>>>> fork, PR and even if that PR is accepted, how do I avoid the fate of >>>>> 2.0.9? >>>>> >>>>> Or is that something I can assist with right now? >>>>> >>>>> Please understand where I'm coming from: I'd really like to keep log4net >>>>> alive, but, like anyone, I have limited time resources, so I'd prefer to >>>>> spend that time on tasks with some reasonable probability of success. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -d >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On April 6, 2020 23:00:36 Ralph Goers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No. What I am implying is that you would begin the work necessary to >>>>>> perform a release on a fork. When you are ready you would submit a PR >>>>>> and one or more of the existing PMC members would review that and merge >>>>>> it. You would then collaborate with us to get the release published. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a big difference between us reviewing PRs and merging them for >>>>>> stuff we know little about vs us providing the karma you will need to >>>>>> formally get a release done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>>>>> Unfortunately, this would suggest that forking and publishing under a >>>>>>> different package name is probably the best idea. There are, as noted >>>>>>> before, 34 stagnated pull requests currently at GitHub, many of which >>>>>>> haven't seen any attention since 2018. It would seem to be a fool's >>>>>>> errand to open a 35th I'm hopes that it would be the one to get >>>>>>> attention. >>>>>>> If I'm wrong (and I'd love to be) please correct me. >>>>>>> -d >>>>>>> On April 6, 2020 15:59:26 Apache wrote: >>>>>>>> The only requirement to become an experienced open source developer is >>>>>>>> passion. Open source developers are just people who like to work on >>>>>>>> code that everyone can use. That’s it. If you have the time, can help >>>>>>>> with the technical problems needed to get the project moving, and can >>>>>>>> collaborate with others you have everything you need. >>>>>>>> Yes, the code base is still at Github and nothing has been done that >>>>>>>> can’t be undone. But for the PMC to move the project out of dormant >>>>>>>> status you would first need to demonstrate progress, which might mean >>>>>>>> collaborating on a private fork until you are ready to merge it. >>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 1:10 AM, Tim Sargent wrote: >>>>>>>>> I remember reading the call for .NET devs (a few years back) to help >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> the .NET core version for Log4Net. That's about the time I joined the >>>>>>>>> mailing list. >>>>>>>>> As I understand it, dormant just means it's no longer being >>>>>>>>> maintained, but >>>>>>>>> the current version is still available for download and use via NuGet. >>>>>>>>> I've toyed with the idea of getting involved in an open source >>>>>>>>> project, >>>>>>>>> which is why I originally joined the list. Unfortunately, I don't >>>>>>>>> think I >>>>>>>>> have the background in open source projects to be an effective >>>>>>>>> contributor, >>>>>>>>> let alone sponsor. I'm very experienced in .NET (having been doing it >>>>>>>>> since it was in its final preview for 1.0), and I have experience >>>>>>>>> with unit >>>>>>>>> tests, automated builds and release pipelines (though it's all MS >>>>>>>>> based via >>>>>>>>> TFS and MSTest). >>>>>>>>> Having said that, it sounds like Mr McColl has a strong interest in >>>>>>>>> keeping >>>>>>>>> it alive, and I'd be happy to offer assistance in any way he finds >>>>>>>>> beneficial. >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:50 AM Apache wrote: >>>>>>>>>> No one is ever happy moving a project to dormant status. But it is >>>>>>>>>> unfair >>>>>>>>>> to users to let them think the project is being maintained when the >>>>>>>>>> reality >>>>>>>>>> is quite different than that. >>>>>>>>>> The main issue that needs to be overcome is getting a release out. >>>>>>>>>> The ASF >>>>>>>>>> has some requirements around releases that have to be met, but that >>>>>>>>>> isn’t >>>>>>>>>> the hard part. Most users want convenience binaries and no one who is >>>>>>>>>> active knows how to do that. There is a documented process in >>>>>>>>>> confluence >>>>>>>>>> but I have no idea how accurate it is. >>>>>>>>>> Once a release is able to be cut getting assistance from others would >>>>>>>>>> probably be easier. >>>>>>>>>> Also, the ASF infra team really doesn’t care about the status of the >>>>>>>>>> project and is not a driving force in this. >>>>>>>>>> To be honest, log4cxx was in a similar position. But that project >>>>>>>>>> has had >>>>>>>>>> a couple of people come forward and are working towards a release. >>>>>>>>>> We hope >>>>>>>>>> they succeed. >>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2020, at 11:56 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>>>> I'm new to this list, been using log4net for around 9 years, and >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>> week discovered that it is being made dormant (and what that means). >>>>>>>>>>> I've been told that the team has been looking for outside help for >>>>>>>>>> around 2 >>>>>>>>>>> years, with no-one forthcoming. Unfortunately, as I say, this is the >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>> I've heard of it. I'd like to keep log4net alive because it's used >>>>>>>>>>> ubiquitously and I think it's a valuable project. >>>>>>>>>>> I publish my own nuget packages >>>>>>>>>>> (https://www.nuget.org/profiles/davydm) >>>>>>>>>>> though obviously, not with the same methodologies of the existing >>>>>>>>>>> log4net >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. I see that there's a 2.0.9 release that could >>>>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>>>> happen (as per the source), whilst 2.0.8 is still the current >>>>>>>>>>> release, so >>>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming there's something holding that up. I also see 34 pull >>>>>>>>>> requests >>>>>>>>>>> on GitHub which are in different states of activity, but many have >>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>> dormant since 2018. >>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to help, but I'm not sure where to start with the log4net >>>>>>>>>>> infra >>>>>>>>>> (I >>>>>>>>>>> hear there's Jira (I've had little experience) and Jenkins (I've had >>>>>>>>>>> reasonable experience, but not with pipelines)). I'm not even sure >>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> state of play is for that infra. I'm sure there are good reasons for >>>>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>>>> the project dormant -- some of those may include the desire to free >>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>> infra which could be used elsewhere (or just not paid for). >>>>>>>>>>> As I say, I'd like to keep log4net alive. I see a few options here: >>>>>>>>>>> 1. I learn your infra and your processes. I integrate and try to >>>>>>>>>>> keep >>>>>>>>>>> things pretty-much as they were (though I'm sure some things would >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> change -- all things do). I don't mind spending the time learning >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> domain, if that's agreeable to everyone and the project retains it's >>>>>>>>>>> original branding and status. One thing I'm concerned about here is >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> dormant backlog >>>>>>>>>>> 2. As above, with a bit of a clean-slate philosophy: I'd like to >>>>>>>>>>> remove >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>> backlog items that aren't critical and start with the least >>>>>>>>>>> outstanding >>>>>>>>>>> stuff possible. If a report is important, it will be reported again. >>>>>>>>>> Trying >>>>>>>>>>> to trace down the authors and origins of 2+year-old reports is >>>>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> frustrating. Issues which aren't attended to just become noise in >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> backlog, imo. >>>>>>>>>>> 3. I fork and perform the "clean slate" approach of above, inviting >>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>> to use my variant and log issues there. Uptake will naturally be >>>>>>>>>>> slow (if >>>>>>>>>>> even noticeable), which will give me time to deal with incoming >>>>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>> the other hand, I'd have full control and no need to bother anyone >>>>>>>>>>> else. >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> would have to come up with a new name and make it clear that it's a >>>>>>>>>>> fork, >>>>>>>>>>> though also make it clear I'd be standing on the shoulders of >>>>>>>>>>> giants. >>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like (1) because it keeps the project that people >>>>>>>>>>> rely on >>>>>>>>>>> alive. Since I'm new to the mailing list, I can't discern yet the >>>>>>>>>> sentiment >>>>>>>>>>> towards the project, except that everyone was quite happy to have >>>>>>>>>>> it made >>>>>>>>>>> dormant, so it feels like there's not a lot of desire to keep it >>>>>>>>>>> going -- >>>>>>>>>>> which is ok: everything comes to an end at some point, and, as >>>>>>>>>>> stated >>>>>>>>>>> earlier, I'm sure there are good reasons for making log4net >>>>>>>>>>> dormant. As a >>>>>>>>>>> consumer of log4net, I'd much rather not have to switch over to >>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>> framework once there's an issue which affects me more than my >>>>>>>>>>> logged one >>>>>>>>>>> (inability to flush logs -- it was on a proof-of-concept project, >>>>>>>>>>> so it >>>>>>>>>>> isn't _that_ important to have the functionality right now). >>>>>>>>>>> Apologies for the rambling message. I was prompted to reach out by >>>>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>>> Goers in the discussion for LOG4NET-606, so I hope I haven't been a >>>>>>>>>> bother. >>>>>>>>>>> -d >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>>>>>>>>>> If you say that getting the money is the most important thing >>>>>>>>>>> You will spend your life completely wasting your time >>>>>>>>>>> You will be doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>>>>>> In order to go on living >>>>>>>>>>> That is, to go on doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>>>>>> Which is stupid. >>>>>>>>>>> - Alan Watts >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY >>>>>>>>>>> *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker
