I think Matt or somebody would just have to add your key to the KEYS file. Otherwise, I have validated the checksums and the key, so +1 from me. I did not validate that anything builds, as I don't do .NET.
-Robert Middleton On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:53 AM Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. *
