Hi Robert I checked and saw the same sha discrepencies - the only reason I can think of is perhaps I interrupted a release script such that I had updated artifacts but interrupted before the shas were computed. Fixed-up now, thanks for the heads-up. Just to be sure, I've updated the release artifacts at GitHub too.
-d On 2021-12-17 08:28:35, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Robert Binaries are signed with my key, though I remember someone raising that my key wasn't in a known area last time, so I'd appreciate help with that. I had a key signing party with Ralph and Matt quite a long time ago, but perhaps there's something I was supposed to do that I didn't ): The sha mismatch is more concerning because the production of artifacts is automated from a script in the repo, so I'll need to go double-check what's going on there. Thanks for the heads-up though. -d On December 17, 2021 02:17:24 Robert Middleton <rmiddle...@apache.org> wrote: I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as expected" for the vote to continue. My understanding is that you don't upload to the release area until the release is done. Having the staging docs point at the release area is fine to me at least(it's what I do for log4cxx), since that's effectively a known issue with a release vote in my mind. Anyway, I checked the binaries on https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], unfortunately it seems as though there may be two problems: 1. SHA512 does not match the zip files at all 2. Signature doesn't seem to be valid, or I don't have the pubkey. Which key is it signed with? -Robert Middleton On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:47 AM Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the pre-release page at https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1 [https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1] I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as expected" for the vote to continue. Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself. Much appreciated. -d PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email ( davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the way. Please ignore the other if it pops up. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY] *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. *
