Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

2011-10-11 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:

> Observations:

> comparing the source zip with the SVN tag, the following items are not in the 
> source zip:

> doap_log4net.rdf (DOAP file placed here for convenience)

Excluded deliberately.  IMHO it shouldn't be in trunk at all but rather
a directory level above.

> src/site/fml (empty directory)
> src/site/resources/js (empty directory)

It seems NAnt's zip task skips them.

> tests/lib/prerequisites.txt (note on prerequisites for running tests, likely 
> dated now).

Actually it is dated in a way but still relevant (you need to copy
nunit.framework.dll to the appropriate directory).  I don't recall
explicitly excluding it, I'll need to see why this happens.

> Many if not all of the source files do not use CRLF line feeds as
> would be expected for a predominantly Windows oriented library. Looks
> like the .zip was built on a Unixy box.

It was built on a Windows box but I suspect the Cygwin svn client I used
considers LF-only the native format.  Will investigate using a different
Windows client for future releases.

> I'll +1 the log4net-src.zip, but would not object if anyone wants to pull it 
> and try again.

> I'm moving on to check the binaries.

Thank you.

Stefan


Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

2011-10-11 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:

> both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll
> describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework
> 2.0. Everybody else has the expected application description.

Those two DLLs are the same file as there currently is no difference
between the 2.0 and 3.5 builds.  Maybe I shouldn't have created the 3.5
version at all.

> log4net-sdk-net-4.0.chm uses a page header reading "log4net SDK
> Documentation ..." that would be better as "Apache log4net SDK
> Documentation".

Will fix that once I figure out how to do it with NDoc.

> doc/index.html refers to log4j and not Apache log4j.

It uses Apache log4net three times before using the shorter version, I
think that's OK.

> doc/index.html refers to the .NET runtime. The Microsoft .NET
> trademark guidelines are at
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Net.aspx.
>  At
> least we should have a Microsoft(r) .NET at the first menion.

Will fix that - for the site as well.  This likely affects other pages
as well.

> newzip.zip:

> log4net-sdk-net-4.0.chm always displayed Navigation to the webpage was
> cancelled for any content. Seems totally broken.

You probably need to "unblock" the .chm.  I wonder why you didn't have
to do that for the oldkey archive.

> I'm thinking it would be better to scuttle RC1 and try again, but I
> won't force the issue.

1.2.11 is through.  I expect us to follow this up with 1.2.12 pretty
soon as there still are enough issues to address and I'm sure new issues
with Client Profile and .NET 4.0 builds will arise now that they become
available.

Stefan


Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

2011-10-11 Thread Curt Arnold

On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:
> 
>> both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll
>> describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework
>> 2.0. Everybody else has the expected application description.
> 
> Those two DLLs are the same file as there currently is no difference
> between the 2.0 and 3.5 builds.  Maybe I shouldn't have created the 3.5
> version at all.

I believe they were not binary identical, but that could have been timestamps 
or other insignificant differences.


> 
>> log4net-sdk-net-4.0.chm uses a page header reading "log4net SDK
>> Documentation ..." that would be better as "Apache log4net SDK
>> Documentation".
> 
> Will fix that once I figure out how to do it with NDoc.
> 
>> doc/index.html refers to log4j and not Apache log4j.
> 
> It uses Apache log4net three times before using the shorter version, I
> think that's OK.

It does describe log4net as Apache log4net appropriately but it does not 
describe log4j as Apache log4j.

> 
>> doc/index.html refers to the .NET runtime. The Microsoft .NET
>> trademark guidelines are at
>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Net.aspx.
>>  At
>> least we should have a Microsoft(r) .NET at the first menion.
> 
> Will fix that - for the site as well.  This likely affects other pages
> as well.

I think the guidelines might have become looser recently. I think at one time 
you would have to describe it as for the Common Language Runtime and could not 
refer to the Microsoft(r) .NET Framework.
> 
>> newzip.zip:
> 
>> log4net-sdk-net-4.0.chm always displayed Navigation to the webpage was
>> cancelled for any content. Seems totally broken.
> 
> You probably need to "unblock" the .chm.  I wonder why you didn't have
> to do that for the oldkey archive.

Funny things happen late at night.

> 
>> I'm thinking it would be better to scuttle RC1 and try again, but I
>> won't force the issue.
> 
> 1.2.11 is through.  I expect us to follow this up with 1.2.12 pretty
> soon as there still are enough issues to address and I'm sure new issues
> with Client Profile and .NET 4.0 builds will arise now that they become
> available.
> 

Frequent releases what a concept. Thanks for all the work to get 1.2.11 out the 
door. 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache log4net 1.2.11 based on RC1

2011-10-11 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On 2011-10-12, Curt Arnold wrote:

> On Oct 11, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>> On 2011-10-11, Curt Arnold wrote:

>>> both bin/2.0/release/log4net.dll and bin/3.5/release/log4net.dll
>>> describe themselves as Apache log4net for the .NET Framework
>>> 2.0. Everybody else has the expected application description.

>> Those two DLLs are the same file as there currently is no difference
>> between the 2.0 and 3.5 builds.  Maybe I shouldn't have created the 3.5
>> version at all.

> I believe they were not binary identical, but that could have been
> timestamps or other insignificant differences.

They have been compiled separately so yes, there will be differences in
timestamps.

>>> doc/index.html refers to log4j and not Apache log4j.

>> It uses Apache log4net three times before using the shorter version, I
>> think that's OK.

> It does describe log4net as Apache log4net appropriately but it does
> not describe log4j as Apache log4j.

I somehow missed you were talking about log4*j* - will fix that in trunk
and update the site later today.

>>> doc/index.html refers to the .NET runtime. The Microsoft .NET
>>> trademark guidelines are at
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/Usage/Net.aspx.
>>>  At
>>> least we should have a Microsoft(r) .NET at the first menion.

>> Will fix that - for the site as well.  This likely affects other pages
>> as well.

> I think the guidelines might have become looser recently. I think at
> one time you would have to describe it as for the Common Language
> Runtime and could not refer to the Microsoft(r) .NET Framework.

The site I've just deployed should be OK - not visible, yet.

> Frequent releases what a concept.

8-)

No promises, though.

Stefan


All mirror links broken?

2011-10-11 Thread cremor
Hi all,

I just saw that the new site with the 1.2.11 release was published (many thanks 
for that btw!) so I assume it should be downloadable too. But all the mirror 
links are broken for me. The mirror page gives me the following options:

http://tweedo.com/mirror/apache//logging/log4net/1.2.11/binaries/log4net-1.2.11-bin-newkey.zip
http://mirror.sti2.at/apache//logging/log4net/1.2.11/binaries/log4net-1.2.11-bin-newkey.zip
ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/pub/infosys/servers/http/apache/dist//logging/log4net/1.2.11/binaries/log4net-1.2.11-bin-newkey.zip
http://www.apache.org/dist//logging/log4net/1.2.11/binaries/log4net-1.2.11-bin-newkey.zip
http://www.eu.apache.org/dist//logging/log4net/1.2.11/binaries/log4net-1.2.11-bin-newkey.zip

(Same for source and oldkey downloads.)

The solution is easy: When I remove the "1.2.11" directory from the path all of 
those links work. But still, should be fixed on the site ;-)

Btw: The double slashes in the paths look a bit weird too.
-- 
NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie!   
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone