And, FWIW, Nuget won’t let me register with my apache.org <http://apache.org/> 
email address saying it can’t be a work or school email.

Ralph

> On Aug 21, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> 
> This gets better and better. I was able to decrypt the file but the 
> credentials don’t work.  The Nuget.org <http://nuget.org/> site says 
> “NuGet.org <http://nuget.org/> password login in no longer supported. Please 
> use a Microsoft account to sign into NuGet gallery.”
> 
> Ralph
> 
>> On Aug 21, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Going back through my old emails I see Dominik had the same problem in 2016. 
>> I forgot to update my files and now I see the instructions have changed.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Aug 21, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I figured out that the document is now at home.apache.org 
>>> <http://home.apache.org/>. Unfortunately, that didn’t do me any good. gpg 
>>> -d is failing with “No secret key”. That doesn’t seem too surprising since 
>>> my key wasn’t used to sign the document.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 21, 2020, at 3:53 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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