Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing the final release steps. Ralph > On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Thanks Ralph > > Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm going > to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to set the > new documentation live because people will expect it, but right now, the > download links are broken. > > Thanks > -d > > On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: > My +1 > > Ralph > >> On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push >> the relevant artifacts from >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the last >> mile) and pushed the nuget package. >> >> -d >> >> On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: >> +1 >> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find >>> >>> them. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out >>> the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries >>> (in >>> particular, nuget consumers) >>> >>> Thanks >>> -d >>> > On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: >>> I can use whatever. >>> >>> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> > >>> > I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my >>> authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is >>> fairly >>> new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a >>> meeting using that. >>> > >>> > Ralph >>> > >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I sent a Google Meet invite to you. >>> >> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone >>> else. >>> >>> It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning >>> school >>> >>> run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before >>> 8am. >>> >>> >>> >>> How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can >>> install >>> >>> Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, >>> though >>> >>> haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. >>> >>> >>> >>> If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free >>> to >>> >>> email me directly (: >>> >>> >>> >>> -d >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On September 20, 2020 20:58:29 Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>> >>> 8am in Durban South Africa is 11pm the night before in Phoenix AZ. >>> However, I frequently am up until midnight so that could work. >>> 5-5:30 pm is >>> 7:30-8 am in Phoenix. I usually am not in front of my computer on a >>> weekday >>> until 8 am but on occasion I can do earlier. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> >> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> > >>> > Any time 08h00 - 17h30 utc+2, except 13h00-14h00 (that's when I >>> fetch my >>> > son from school) >>> > >>> > -d >>> > >>> > >>> >> On September 20, 2020 18:44:19 Matt Sicker wrote: >>> > >>> >> We’re not quite as strict as Debian for keys (though if you can >>> find a >>> >> Debian group locally, they’re great for key signing). The video >>> call idea >>> >> could work for exchanging keys. What times would you be available >>> to do >>> >> that? >>> >> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 03:09 Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I think I miscommunicated: I'm not regenerating my signing key - >>> just the >>> >>> >>> >>> nuget API key for package upload. This forces me to log in in >>> nuget.org >>> >>> >>> >>> which has 2fa and then I only use that key on the cli for the >>> immediate >>> >>> upload. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> My gpg key as at https://GitHub.com/fluffynuts.gpg is the same >>> that I >>> >>> used >>> >>> >>> >>> last time. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -d >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On September 20, 2020 09:01:36
Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
By results, I understand you mean a tally? There were only three votes, all positive. I've pushed the nupkg. -d On October 26, 2020 13:35:15 Apache wrote: You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing the final release steps. Ralph On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks Ralph Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm going to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to set the new documentation live because people will expect it, but right now, the download links are broken. Thanks -d On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: My +1 Ralph On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push the relevant artifacts from https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the last mile) and pushed the nuget package. -d On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: +1 On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: +1 -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: Hi all I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries (in particular, nuget consumers) Thanks -d On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: I can use whatever. On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is fairly new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a meeting using that. Ralph On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: I sent a Google Meet invite to you. On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone else. It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning school run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before 8am. How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can install Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, though haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free to email me directly (: -d On September 20, 2020 20:58:29 Ralph Goers wrote: 8am in Durban South Africa is 11pm the night before in Phoenix AZ. However, I frequently am up until midnight so that could work. 5-5:30 pm is 7:30-8 am in Phoenix. I usually am not in front of my computer on a weekday until 8 am but on occasion I can do earlier. Ralph On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: Any time 08h00 - 17h30 utc+2, except 13h00-14h00 (that's when I fetch my son from school) -d On September 20, 2020 18:44:19 Matt Sicker wrote: We’re not quite as strict as Debian for keys (though if you can find a Debian group locally, they’re great for key signing). The video call idea could work for exchanging keys. What times would you be available to do that? On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 03:09 Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Ralph I think I miscommunicated: I'm not regenerating my signing key - just the nuget API key for package upload. This forces me to log in in nuget.org which has 2fa and then I only use that key on the cli for the immediate upload. My gpg key as at https://GitHub.com/fluffynuts.gpg is the same that I used last time. -d On September 20, 2020 09:01:36 Ralph Goers wrote: In the long run you don’t want to be regenerating your signing key for every release. The point is that you would upload the key to a central keystore and other people would sign it there. At ApacheCon we would have a key signing “party” where we recorded each others keys and then would take our list and update the central keystore. When people verify the key they can look at the keystore and see that it is signed by a number of people, who then have their keys by a number of people and so on so you are building a web of trust. Sooner or later there will be someone in that web that you personally know and trust. Ralph On Sep 19, 2020, at 11:26 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks Matt, I've updated the artifacts on GitHub to have detached signatures. I had previously also uploaded my key to sks-keyservers.net, but I've also uploaded to MIT, though search there always times out. The document y
Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
Yes, an email confirming the vote passed along with the tally. Then, after everything has been uploaded and mirrored, we can send an announcement email about the release. On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 06:58, Davyd McColl wrote: > > By results, I understand you mean a tally? There were only three votes, all > positive. I've pushed the nupkg. > > -d > > > On October 26, 2020 13:35:15 Apache wrote: > > > You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing > > the final release steps. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ralph > >> > >> Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm > >> going to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to > >> set the new documentation live because people will expect it, but right > >> now, the download links are broken. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -d > >> > >> On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> My +1 > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push > >>> the relevant artifacts from > >>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the > >>> last mile) and pushed the nuget package. > >>> > >>> -d > >>> > >>> On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: > >>> +1 > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > +1 > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find > > them. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out > > > the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries > (in > > > particular, nuget consumers) > > > > > > Thanks > > > -d > > >> On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > I can use whatever. > > > > > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: > > >> > > >> I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my > > > authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is > fairly > > > new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a > > > meeting using that. > > >> > > >> Ralph > > >> > > On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I sent a Google Meet invite to you. > > >>> > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone > > > else. > > It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning > > > school > > run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before > > > 8am. > > > > How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can > install > > Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, > though > > haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. > > > > If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free > to > > email me directly (: > > > > -d > > > > > > > On September 20, 2020 20:58:29 Ralph Goers wrote: > > > > > 8am in Durban South Africa is 11pm the night before in Phoenix AZ. > > > However, I frequently am up until midnight so that could work. > > > 5-5:30 pm is > > > 7:30-8 am in Phoenix. I usually am not in front of my computer on a > > > weekday > > > until 8 am but on occasion I can do earlier. > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > >>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > >> > > >> Any time 08h00 - 17h30 utc+2, except 13h00-14h00 (that's when I > > > fetch my > > >> son from school) > > >> > > >> -d > > >> > > >> > > >>> On September 20, 2020 18:44:19 Matt Sicker wrote: > > >> > > >>> We’re not quite as strict as Debian for keys (though if you can > > > find a > > >>> Debian group locally, they’re great for key signing). The video > > > call idea > > >>> could work for exchanging keys. What times would you be available > > > to do > > >>> that? > > >>> > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 03:09 Davyd McColl wrote: >
Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
Hi Matt Thanks, I still forget some of the dots and crosses ): -d On 2020/10/26 16:20:58, Matt Sicker wrote: Yes, an email confirming the vote passed along with the tally. Then, after everything has been uploaded and mirrored, we can send an announcement email about the release. On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 06:58, Davyd McColl wrote: > > By results, I understand you mean a tally? There were only three votes, all > positive. I've pushed the nupkg. > > -d > > > On October 26, 2020 13:35:15 Apache wrote: > > > You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing > > the final release steps. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ralph > >> > >> Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm > >> going to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to > >> set the new documentation live because people will expect it, but right > >> now, the download links are broken. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -d > >> > >> On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> My +1 > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push > >>> the relevant artifacts from > >>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the > >>> last mile) and pushed the nuget package. > >>> > >>> -d > >>> > >>> On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: > >>> +1 > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > +1 > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find > > them. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out > > > the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries > (in > > > particular, nuget consumers) > > > > > > Thanks > > > -d > > >> On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > I can use whatever. > > > > > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: > > >> > > >> I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my > > > authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is > fairly > > > new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a > > > meeting using that. > > >> > > >> Ralph > > >> > > On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I sent a Google Meet invite to you. > > >>> > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone > > > else. > > It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning > > > school > > run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before > > > 8am. > > > > How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can > install > > Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, > though > > haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. > > > > If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free > to > > email me directly (: > > > > -d > > > > > > > On September 20, 2020 20:58:29 Ralph Goers wrote: > > > > > 8am in Durban South Africa is 11pm the night before in Phoenix AZ. > > > However, I frequently am up until midnight so that could work. > > > 5-5:30 pm is > > > 7:30-8 am in Phoenix. I usually am not in front of my computer on a > > > weekday > > > until 8 am but on occasion I can do earlier. > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > >>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > >> > > >> Any time 08h00 - 17h30 utc+2, except 13h00-14h00 (that's when I > > > fetch my > > >> son from school) > > >> > > >> -d > > >> > > >> > > >>> On September 20, 2020 18:44:19 Matt Sicker wrote: > > >> > > >>> We’re not quite as strict as Debian for keys (though if you can > > > find a > > >>> Debian group locally, they’re great for key signing). The video > > > call idea > > >>> could work for exchanging keys. What times would you be available > > > to do > > >>>
Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
Ralph, I think this thread has been a little confused along the way -- I see that the title of this mail includes the version 2.0.11, but the current release is 2.0.12, which includes the versioning fix mentioned in this thread, as well as fixes for LOG4NET-(652|653) wherein the username associated with the current thread was not being properly handled on non-win32 targets (and was, in fact, throwing an exception). I'm not entirely sure when the confusion settled in, but the initial vote was set off on Friday 23 October, and was voted +1 by both Remko and Matt, however your response has been to this thread, so I'd like to double-check whether your vote is for the 2.0.12 release? I know the cat's kinda out the proverbial bag... however, before I go declaring that I have 3 votes on 2.0.12, I'd like to make sure! I swear, one of these days I'm going to do a release without a hiccup :| -d On 2020/10/26 16:35:46, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Matt Thanks, I still forget some of the dots and crosses ): -d On 2020/10/26 16:20:58, Matt Sicker wrote: Yes, an email confirming the vote passed along with the tally. Then, after everything has been uploaded and mirrored, we can send an announcement email about the release. On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 06:58, Davyd McColl wrote: > > By results, I understand you mean a tally? There were only three votes, all > positive. I've pushed the nupkg. > > -d > > > On October 26, 2020 13:35:15 Apache wrote: > > > You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing > > the final release steps. > > > > Ralph > > > >> On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ralph > >> > >> Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm > >> going to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to > >> set the new documentation live because people will expect it, but right > >> now, the download links are broken. > >> > >> Thanks > >> -d > >> > >> On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> My +1 > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >>> On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push > >>> the relevant artifacts from > >>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the > >>> last mile) and pushed the nuget package. > >>> > >>> -d > >>> > >>> On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: > >>> +1 > >>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > +1 > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find > > them. > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out > > > the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries > (in > > > particular, nuget consumers) > > > > > > Thanks > > > -d > > >> On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > I can use whatever. > > > > > >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: > > >> > > >> I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my > > > authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is > fairly > > > new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a > > > meeting using that. > > >> > > >> Ralph > > >> > > On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I sent a Google Meet invite to you. > > >>> > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: > > > > I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone > > > else. > > It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning > > > school > > run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before > > > 8am. > > > > How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can > install > > Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, > though > > haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. > > > > If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free > to > > email me directly (: > > > > -d > > > > > > > On September 20, 2020 20:58:29 Ralph Goers wrote: > > > > > 8am in Durban South Africa is 11pm the night before in Phoenix AZ. > > > However, I frequently am up until midnight so that could work. > > > 5-5:30 pm is > > > 7:30-8 a
Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11
Yeah, now that you point that out the artifact I looked at was the one in the original email in this thread - 2.0.11.zip. I can’t say what everyone else voted on. Ralph > On Oct 26, 2020, at 7:41 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Ralph, I think this thread has been a little confused along the way -- I see > that the title of this mail includes the version 2.0.11, but the current > release is 2.0.12, which includes the versioning fix mentioned in this > thread, as well as fixes for LOG4NET-(652|653) wherein the username > associated with the current thread was not being properly handled on > non-win32 targets (and was, in fact, throwing an exception). I'm not entirely > sure when the confusion settled in, but the initial vote was set off on > Friday 23 October, and was voted +1 by both Remko and Matt, however your > response has been to this thread, so I'd like to double-check whether your > vote is for the 2.0.12 release? I know the cat's kinda out the proverbial > bag... however, before I go declaring that I have 3 votes on 2.0.12, I'd like > to make sure! > > I swear, one of these days I'm going to do a release without a hiccup :| > > -d > > On 2020/10/26 16:35:46, Davyd McColl wrote: > Hi Matt > > Thanks, I still forget some of the dots and crosses ): > > -d > > On 2020/10/26 16:20:58, Matt Sicker wrote: > Yes, an email confirming the vote passed along with the tally. Then, > after everything has been uploaded and mirrored, we can send an > announcement email about the release. > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 06:58, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> By results, I understand you mean a tally? There were only three votes, all >> positive. I've pushed the nupkg. >> >> -d >> >> >> On October 26, 2020 13:35:15 Apache wrote: >> >>> You need to close the vote thread with the results first before performing >>> the final release steps. >>> >>> Ralph >>> On Oct 25, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks Ralph Could you assist with getting artifacts up to downloads.apache.org? I'm going to push the nupkg because people are waiting on it, and will have to set the new documentation live because people will expect it, but right now, the download links are broken. Thanks -d On 2020/10/25 01:21:15, Ralph Goers wrote: My +1 Ralph > On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:21 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Thanks all; I've completed the release as far as I can (Ralph, please push > the relevant artifacts from > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.11 the > last mile) and pushed the nuget package. > > -d > > On 2020/09/22 17:34:34, Matt Sicker wrote: > +1 > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:23 Dominik Psenner wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find >> >> them. >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 08:37 Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> I'd appreciate any more +1's (thanks, Remko!). I'd like to get this out >> >>> the door because it fixes confusing versioning on the released binaries >> (in >> >>> particular, nuget consumers) >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> -d >> On 2020/09/20 22:33:49, Matt Sicker wrote: >> >>> I can use whatever. >> >>> >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 15:26, Ralph Goers wrote: >> >> I don’t have google meet and I can’t use Skype since Microsoft hosed my >> >>> authentication. I have zoom. My company uses Amazon Chime, which is >> fairly >> >>> new, as part of our product offering. I’ve sent you both emails for a >> >>> meeting using that. >> >> Ralph >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: >> > >> > I sent a Google Meet invite to you. >> > >> >> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 14:26, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> >> >> I'm happy to be available at 8am my side, if that works for everyone >> >>> else. >> >> It sounds like earlier would be better, but I'm doing the morning >> >>> school >> >> run from 7am and can't guarantee I'll be back significantly before >> >>> 8am. >> >> >> >> How to do this? I have zoom and slack on my work machine, can >> install >> >> Skype if that's more convenient, can do google meet, I assume, >> though >> >> haven't ever tried, so may need a bit of a crash intro. >> >> >> >> If posting meeting details to the mailing list is not on, feel free >> to >> >> email me directly (: >>
Re: [LOG4NET] Vote for release: 2.0.12
Ralph, here's the 2.0.12 thread where Matt and Remko voted. -d On October 23, 2020 17:57:31 Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks Matt I think I need 3 to release... Any other takers? -d On October 23, 2020 17:33:19 Matt Sicker wrote: It seems I forgot to add my +1 here. On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 01:45, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Remko Yes, this is a vote thread -- thanks for your +1 (: Matt, I've fortunately found that the maintainer of gulp-zip did a minor release which sorts out the issue -- I was behind by one minor and the code that I saw, _not_ setting mode on folders is the fix... I've updated the release at https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 and have tested the source zip. Thanks -d On 2020/10/19 08:25:06, Remko Popma wrote: Is this not a vote thread? > On Oct 19, 2020, at 13:27, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Interesting. Anyways, as there are workarounds, it’s not a release blocker > at least. > >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 23:14 Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> Hi Matt >> >> Looks like the culprit is gulp-zip, specifically, the source I see sets >> mode for files but not folders (with a source comment about why and a link >> to some other issue). Since there are people with issues open since 2016 >> and I don't see a way to change this behavior with arguments, this looks >> like yet another npm module I'll have to fork and maintain myself (or copy, >> embed and fix in log4net, at the very least). May take me a little while. >> >> -d >> >>> On October 18, 2020 22:24:41 Matt Sicker wrote: >>> >>> I've tried extracting it via unzip, tar, and the built in macOS GUI >>> unzipper, and all three respect the permissions specified which cause >>> permissions errors on unix. Being that this release is to help fix >>> something for non-windows users, it'll be hard for them to use any of >>> the artifacts besides the nupkg (which is likely the more frequently >>> used artifact I'd imagine). Doing a zipinfo on the nupkg file notes >>> that it's encoded using zip 2.0 in fat permissions format while the >>> source and binary zips are encoded from zip 6.3 in unix permissions >>> format. >>> >>> What you might want to figure out is how to make the win32 zippers >>> _not_ add unix permissions since they're doing it wrong. :) >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:55, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> Hi Matt Zip files are created from windows as there are certain targets that Unix compiles can't hit (specifically < net40 and client profiles), which would probably explain the permissions. Not a lot I can do about it though, that I know of. If it's an issue and someone knows how to convince win32 zippers to do Unix permissions, I'm all ears. -d On October 18, 2020 20:07:18 Matt Sicker wrote: > > Signatures and checksums are good. Once I extracted the zips, though, > I see they have some strange permissions configured. All the > directories have a chmod of rw-rw-rw (just like all the files do), but > they should be rwxr-xr-x. Example output from zipinfo comparing > log4net zip with log4j zip: > > Archive: apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin.zip > Zip file size: 14581816 bytes, number of entries: 74 > drwxr-xr-x 2.0 unx 0 b- stor 20-May-10 12:06 > apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/ > -rw-r--r-- 2.0 unx 2888 bl defN 20-May-10 11:56 > apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/RELEASE-NOTES.md > ... > > Archive: apache-log4net-binaries-2.0.12.zip > Zip file size: 2154452 bytes, number of entries: 28 > drw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 0 b- stor 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/ > ... > -rw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 262144 b- defN 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/log4net.dll > ... > > The directories need to be executable to be able to list files from > them (Unix/POSIX). I'm not sure how these zip files got these > permissions. I see that the previous 2.0.10 release of log4net has the > same problem, though. > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 11:03, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Not much has changed in 2.0.12 except that an issue affecting >> non-windows users has been addressed. LOG4NET-652 and LOG4NET-653 both stem >> from the same source, wherein the username for the current logging thread >> was not correctly retrieved on non-windows platforms and would throw a >> PlatformNotSupported error. I was hoping that one of the authors of pull >> requests to resolve this would respond to my comments on said pull >> requests, but it's been a while now and there's been a user asking when the >> update would be released, so, as much as I would have liked the community >> member commits, I've gone ahead and applied the logic myself. >> >> Anyways, 2.0.12 is up for release at >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 [ >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12] >> >> with signed artifacts there. Documentat
Re: [LOG4NET] Vote for release: 2.0.12
OK +1 to these. Ralph > On Oct 26, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Ralph, here's the 2.0.12 thread where Matt and Remko voted. > > -d > > > On October 23, 2020 17:57:31 Davyd McColl wrote: > >> Thanks Matt >> >> I think I need 3 to release... Any other takers? >> >> -d >> >> >> On October 23, 2020 17:33:19 Matt Sicker wrote: >> >>> It seems I forgot to add my +1 here. >>> >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 01:45, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Remko Yes, this is a vote thread -- thanks for your +1 (: Matt, I've fortunately found that the maintainer of gulp-zip did a minor release which sorts out the issue -- I was behind by one minor and the code that I saw, _not_ setting mode on folders is the fix... I've updated the release at https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 and have tested the source zip. Thanks -d On 2020/10/19 08:25:06, Remko Popma wrote: Is this not a vote thread? > On Oct 19, 2020, at 13:27, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Interesting. Anyways, as there are workarounds, it’s not a release > blocker > at least. > >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 23:14 Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> Hi Matt >> >> Looks like the culprit is gulp-zip, specifically, the source I see sets >> mode for files but not folders (with a source comment about why and a >> link >> to some other issue). Since there are people with issues open since 2016 >> and I don't see a way to change this behavior with arguments, this looks >> like yet another npm module I'll have to fork and maintain myself (or >> copy, >> embed and fix in log4net, at the very least). May take me a little >> while. >> >> -d >> >>> On October 18, 2020 22:24:41 Matt Sicker wrote: >>> >>> I've tried extracting it via unzip, tar, and the built in macOS GUI >>> unzipper, and all three respect the permissions specified which cause >>> permissions errors on unix. Being that this release is to help fix >>> something for non-windows users, it'll be hard for them to use any of >>> the artifacts besides the nupkg (which is likely the more frequently >>> used artifact I'd imagine). Doing a zipinfo on the nupkg file notes >>> that it's encoded using zip 2.0 in fat permissions format while the >>> source and binary zips are encoded from zip 6.3 in unix permissions >>> format. >>> >>> What you might want to figure out is how to make the win32 zippers >>> _not_ add unix permissions since they're doing it wrong. :) >>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:55, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> Hi Matt Zip files are created from windows as there are certain targets that Unix compiles can't hit (specifically < net40 and client profiles), which would probably explain the permissions. Not a lot I can do about it though, that I know of. If it's an issue and someone knows how to convince win32 zippers to do Unix permissions, I'm all ears. -d On October 18, 2020 20:07:18 Matt Sicker wrote: > > Signatures and checksums are good. Once I extracted the zips, though, > I see they have some strange permissions configured. All the > directories have a chmod of rw-rw-rw (just like all the files do), > but > they should be rwxr-xr-x. Example output from zipinfo comparing > log4net zip with log4j zip: > > Archive: apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin.zip > Zip file size: 14581816 bytes, number of entries: 74 > drwxr-xr-x 2.0 unx 0 b- stor 20-May-10 12:06 > apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/ > -rw-r--r-- 2.0 unx 2888 bl defN 20-May-10 11:56 > apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/RELEASE-NOTES.md > ... > > Archive: apache-log4net-binaries-2.0.12.zip > Zip file size: 2154452 bytes, number of entries: 28 > drw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 0 b- stor 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/ > ... > -rw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 262144 b- defN 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/log4net.dll > ... > > The directories need to be executable to be able to list files from > them (Unix/POSIX). I'm not sure how these zip files got these > permissions. I see that the previous 2.0.10 release of log4net has > the > same problem, though. > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 11:03, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Not much has changed in 2.0.12 except that an issue affecting >> non-windows users has been addressed. LOG4NET-652 and LOG4NET-653 both stem >> from the same source, wherein the username for the current loggi
[Announce] [log4net] release 2.0.12
Hi all I'd like to announce the release of log4net 2.0.12, which resolves issues LOG4NET-652 AND LOG4NET-653, both of which are related to correctly retrieving the username for the current thread, which would throw an exception on non-win32 platforms. The site is up, nupkg is released, please can a member push artifacts the last mile to apache download servers. GitHub release is here: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rel%2F2.0.12 Thanks -d
Re: [LOG4NET] Vote for release: 2.0.12
The files were added to the distribution directory. Ralph > On Oct 26, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > OK > > +1 to these. > > Ralph > >> On Oct 26, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> Ralph, here's the 2.0.12 thread where Matt and Remko voted. >> >> -d >> >> >> On October 23, 2020 17:57:31 Davyd McColl wrote: >> >>> Thanks Matt >>> >>> I think I need 3 to release... Any other takers? >>> >>> -d >>> >>> >>> On October 23, 2020 17:33:19 Matt Sicker wrote: >>> It seems I forgot to add my +1 here. On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 01:45, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Hi Remko > > Yes, this is a vote thread -- thanks for your +1 (: > > Matt, I've fortunately found that the maintainer of gulp-zip did a minor > release which sorts out the issue -- I was behind by one minor and the > code > that I saw, _not_ setting mode on folders is the fix... I've updated the > release at > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 and > have > tested the source zip. > > Thanks > -d > > On 2020/10/19 08:25:06, Remko Popma wrote: > Is this not a vote thread? > > > >> On Oct 19, 2020, at 13:27, Matt Sicker wrote: >> >> Interesting. Anyways, as there are workarounds, it’s not a release >> blocker >> at least. >> >>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 23:14 Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> Hi Matt >>> >>> Looks like the culprit is gulp-zip, specifically, the source I see sets >>> mode for files but not folders (with a source comment about why and a >>> link >>> to some other issue). Since there are people with issues open since 2016 >>> and I don't see a way to change this behavior with arguments, this looks >>> like yet another npm module I'll have to fork and maintain myself (or >>> copy, >>> embed and fix in log4net, at the very least). May take me a little >>> while. >>> >>> -d >>> On October 18, 2020 22:24:41 Matt Sicker wrote: I've tried extracting it via unzip, tar, and the built in macOS GUI unzipper, and all three respect the permissions specified which cause permissions errors on unix. Being that this release is to help fix something for non-windows users, it'll be hard for them to use any of the artifacts besides the nupkg (which is likely the more frequently used artifact I'd imagine). Doing a zipinfo on the nupkg file notes that it's encoded using zip 2.0 in fat permissions format while the source and binary zips are encoded from zip 6.3 in unix permissions format. What you might want to figure out is how to make the win32 zippers _not_ add unix permissions since they're doing it wrong. :) > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:55, Davyd McColl wrote: > > Hi Matt > > Zip files are created from windows as there are certain targets that > Unix compiles can't hit (specifically < net40 and client profiles), > which > would probably explain the permissions. Not a lot I can do about it > though, > that I know of. If it's an issue and someone knows how to convince > win32 > zippers to do Unix permissions, I'm all ears. > > -d > > On October 18, 2020 20:07:18 Matt Sicker wrote: > >> >> Signatures and checksums are good. Once I extracted the zips, though, >> I see they have some strange permissions configured. All the >> directories have a chmod of rw-rw-rw (just like all the files do), >> but >> they should be rwxr-xr-x. Example output from zipinfo comparing >> log4net zip with log4j zip: >> >> Archive: apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin.zip >> Zip file size: 14581816 bytes, number of entries: 74 >> drwxr-xr-x 2.0 unx 0 b- stor 20-May-10 12:06 >> apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/ >> -rw-r--r-- 2.0 unx 2888 bl defN 20-May-10 11:56 >> apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/RELEASE-NOTES.md >> ... >> >> Archive: apache-log4net-binaries-2.0.12.zip >> Zip file size: 2154452 bytes, number of entries: 28 >> drw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 0 b- stor 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/ >> ... >> -rw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 262144 b- defN 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/log4net.dll >> ... >> >> The directories need to be executable to be able to list files from >> them (Unix/POSIX). I'm not sure how these zip files got these >> permissions. I see that the previous 2.0.10 release of log4net has >> the >> same problem, though. >> >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 11:03, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Not much has changed in 2.0
Re: [LOG4NET] Vote for release: 2.0.12
Thanks Ralph -d On October 26, 2020 18:48:30 Ralph Goers wrote: The files were added to the distribution directory. Ralph On Oct 26, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: OK +1 to these. Ralph On Oct 26, 2020, at 8:57 AM, Davyd McColl wrote: Ralph, here's the 2.0.12 thread where Matt and Remko voted. -d On October 23, 2020 17:57:31 Davyd McColl wrote: Thanks Matt I think I need 3 to release... Any other takers? -d On October 23, 2020 17:33:19 Matt Sicker wrote: It seems I forgot to add my +1 here. On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 01:45, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Remko Yes, this is a vote thread -- thanks for your +1 (: Matt, I've fortunately found that the maintainer of gulp-zip did a minor release which sorts out the issue -- I was behind by one minor and the code that I saw, _not_ setting mode on folders is the fix... I've updated the release at https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 and have tested the source zip. Thanks -d On 2020/10/19 08:25:06, Remko Popma wrote: Is this not a vote thread? On Oct 19, 2020, at 13:27, Matt Sicker wrote: Interesting. Anyways, as there are workarounds, it’s not a release blocker at least. On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 23:14 Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Matt Looks like the culprit is gulp-zip, specifically, the source I see sets mode for files but not folders (with a source comment about why and a link to some other issue). Since there are people with issues open since 2016 and I don't see a way to change this behavior with arguments, this looks like yet another npm module I'll have to fork and maintain myself (or copy, embed and fix in log4net, at the very least). May take me a little while. -d On October 18, 2020 22:24:41 Matt Sicker wrote: I've tried extracting it via unzip, tar, and the built in macOS GUI unzipper, and all three respect the permissions specified which cause permissions errors on unix. Being that this release is to help fix something for non-windows users, it'll be hard for them to use any of the artifacts besides the nupkg (which is likely the more frequently used artifact I'd imagine). Doing a zipinfo on the nupkg file notes that it's encoded using zip 2.0 in fat permissions format while the source and binary zips are encoded from zip 6.3 in unix permissions format. What you might want to figure out is how to make the win32 zippers _not_ add unix permissions since they're doing it wrong. :) On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 13:55, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi Matt Zip files are created from windows as there are certain targets that Unix compiles can't hit (specifically < net40 and client profiles), which would probably explain the permissions. Not a lot I can do about it though, that I know of. If it's an issue and someone knows how to convince win32 zippers to do Unix permissions, I'm all ears. -d On October 18, 2020 20:07:18 Matt Sicker wrote: Signatures and checksums are good. Once I extracted the zips, though, I see they have some strange permissions configured. All the directories have a chmod of rw-rw-rw (just like all the files do), but they should be rwxr-xr-x. Example output from zipinfo comparing log4net zip with log4j zip: Archive: apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin.zip Zip file size: 14581816 bytes, number of entries: 74 drwxr-xr-x 2.0 unx 0 b- stor 20-May-10 12:06 apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/ -rw-r--r-- 2.0 unx 2888 bl defN 20-May-10 11:56 apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/RELEASE-NOTES.md ... Archive: apache-log4net-binaries-2.0.12.zip Zip file size: 2154452 bytes, number of entries: 28 drw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 0 b- stor 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/ ... -rw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 262144 b- defN 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/log4net.dll ... The directories need to be executable to be able to list files from them (Unix/POSIX). I'm not sure how these zip files got these permissions. I see that the previous 2.0.10 release of log4net has the same problem, though. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 11:03, Davyd McColl wrote: Hi all Not much has changed in 2.0.12 except that an issue affecting non-windows users has been addressed. LOG4NET-652 and LOG4NET-653 both stem from the same source, wherein the username for the current logging thread was not correctly retrieved on non-windows platforms and would throw a PlatformNotSupported error. I was hoping that one of the authors of pull requests to resolve this would respond to my comments on said pull requests, but it's been a while now and there's been a user asking when the update would be released, so, as much as I would have liked the community member commits, I've gone ahead and applied the logic myself. Anyways, 2.0.12 is up for release at https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 [ https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12] with signed artifacts there. Documentation is updated at the staging site -- all that's left is a sanity check and vote before I can push the nupkg to nuget.org, which is how most people will consume it. Ralph,
