Great!
How do we get the nupkg to nuget.org? This is the final step that most
users are going to be interested in.
Having a look at what's at the url you posted, I have ideas on how to
streamline future releases, so the next time I'm in that area, I'm
definitely implementing those ideas. I don't see changes to the Release
Notes area -- if I were to try to streamline that into a release, would a
CHANGELOG file be useful? Or is there a better way?
-d
On 2020/08/16 23:26:07, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I committed them to dist already. I don't know how long we should wait
for any mirroring to catch up, though on my end, I see updated
artifacts on https://downloads.apache.org/logging/log4net/ other than
the release notes.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 15:09, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> +1 to that!
>
> Let me know when these are published. I can update the web site to
reflect that it is no longer dormant.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Aug 16, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >
> > Thanks so much for your help in releasing this!
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Davyd McColl wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll make changes to the automated build to affect all changes you
have
> >> made (and perhaps will make) automatically to future releases for the
next
> >> release. Apologies for making this more difficult than it needs to be
(:
> >>
> >> -d
> >>
> >>
> >> On August 16, 2020 20:37:01 Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just a simple copy of the LICENSE and NOTICE file into the binaries
> >>> zip, and a rename of the files to include "apache" in the name. I've
> >>> uploaded them to dist along with updating the KEYS file for log4net,
> >>> though that should probably be merged together with the project-wide
> >>> KEYS file in the parent directory. There's an outdated README.html in
> >>> the directory still containing the old release notes, but we can
> >>> address that next.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:12, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> One issue I found in one of the artifacts that I can address before
> >>>> uploading since it wasn't signed is the binaries zip is missing the
> >>>> LICENSE file. I'm not sure if there's a standard way to include that
> >>>> in the nupkg file, but I did see that in its metadata, it explicitly
> >>>> says the code is Apache2 licensed at least.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:03, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll sign and publish the artifacts today.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 17:43, Ralph Goers wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Remko. That makes 3 +1 votes from PMC members.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Remko Popma wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 Remko.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:04 AM Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 from me. We can handle the release signing afterwards as
Ralph
> >>>> suggests.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Ralph Goers
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Can other PMC members please review this? It has been more
than 72
> >>>>>>>> hours.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ralph
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 11:17 PM, Davyd McColl
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, I've never done this before, so bear with me if I
fluff it:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is a proposed vote to release log4net 2.0.9 from PR
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/pull/61
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Release artifacts (including source zip) are at:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/fluffynuts/logging-log4net/builds/34063235/artifacts
> >>>>>>>>>> Source can be checked out from
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/fluffynuts/logging-log4net/logging-log4net,
tag rel/
> >>>>>>>> 2.0.9. I can't push tags to the upstream, but this tag is
exactly the
> >>>>>>>> same commit as the last in the PR mentioned above, which was
> >>>> accepted into
> >>>>>>>> master a few days ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Please check out the artifacts & if everyone is ok with
what's there,
> >>>>>>>> please can someone with the rights to publish to nuget do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Once I've seen how this process works, I'd like to tackle the
CVE that
> >>>>>>>> has been brought up on this list more than once -- it's a
simple change
> >>>>>>>> which was already committed to the develop branch some time
ago, so
> >>>> there
> >>>>>>>> are a couple of options here:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. cherry-pick that commit & do a 2.0.10 release pronto, with
only
> >>>>>>>> that change
> >>>>>>>>>> 2. trawl the develop branch to see what else was already
solved in
> >>>>>>>> there, and get that out as 2.0.10, and perhaps close out that
branch to
> >>>>>>>> avoid future confusion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time
> >>>>>>>>>> -d
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Matt Sicker
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Matt Sicker
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matt Sicker
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker
> >
>
>
--
Matt Sicker
