Dominik,

The README file says that the keys can be found at 
https://people.apache.org/keys/group/logging-pmc.asc 
<https://people.apache.org/keys/group/logging-pmc.asc>.  That url returns a 
404. Any idea where it moved to?

Ralph

> On Aug 17, 2020, at 9:39 AM, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I guess that would be a nuget publish.
> 
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/nuget-org/publish-a-package
> 
> The credentials to that account are stored in the private repos of logging
> pmc. Most members of the pmc should be in the set of recipients with their
> gpg key.
> --
> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
> them.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 08:56 Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 

Reply via email to