lognet license file

-- Dominik Psenner

Re: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

erences that are not upgraded for > netcoreapp 2.0. Please, would you mind to upgrade them? > > Thanks in advance. Best regards, > > Borja > > > -- Dominik Psenner

Upgrading System.Runtime.InteropServices and other netstandard dependencies from 4.1.0 to 4.3.0 (was: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net')

.3). But in the meantime, the application using the netcoreapp2.0 (netstandard-2.0), will through this error. Best regards, Borja From: Dominik Psenner [mailto:dpsen...@gmail.com] Sent: lunes, 11 de diciembre de 2017 22:58 To: Borja Ruiz Arroyo Cc: Logging PMC; dev@logging.apache.org<mailto:dev@

log4net on gcloud

. Quoting the disclaimer: > Find and fix your production issues > Track the health of your app once it’s running in production with Stackdriver Logging via the popular .NET log4net library. Cheers and greetings -- Dominik Psenner [1] https://cloud.google.com/dotnet/ [2] https://cloud.goog

Re: [log4j] providing sourcewith Message

Could a compile time environment variable like SrcRootDirectory do the job? On 20 Dec 2017 7:49 p.m., "Jeffrey Shaw" wrote: > I got it working using a custom ExtendedLogger instead of mocking. > > It looks like for file name, there are only two options. We can have the > file name, or the full p

[log4net] release 2.0.9

ork done and do the release. Is there someone out there who offers his/her help? Best regards -- Dominik Psenner

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

gging-log4net/job/feature%252Fcd-pipeline/189/console There are failing tests and the test process somehow gets stuck and is only killed by the 4 hour timeout of the build pipeline. On 2018-01-08 22:44, Dominik Psenner wrote: Hi, quite some time passed by since we last made a release and there

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

2018-01-13 16:40 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig : > On 2018-01-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > I'm working on LOG4NET-566, hoping that we can get a release build > > from our CI. > > CI won't be able to create the oldkey binaries unless we are willing to > make

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

ave already fixed all of this. But since this does not work on CI it's not yet merged into develop. > > On 2018-01-08, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > There are also a few things that I absolutely see not ready for 2.0.9: > > > - add support for the netstandard-2.0 target; t

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 20 Jan 2018 6:47 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > 2018-01-15 10:22 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig : >> Hi >> by now I've dusted off the old VM that I used to build 2.0.8 (at leat >> the Windows part of it), installed .NET C

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 20 Jan 2018 7:27 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 20 Jan 2018 6:47 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> On 2018-01-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > >>> 2018-01-15 10:22 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig : >>>&

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 20 Jan 2018 9:29 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 20 Jan 2018 7:27 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> Building .NET 2.0 (not standard or core, good old .NET framework) was >> broken. > I see. I wonder why the bu

Re: [log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

Sometimes it is possible to configure the test runner so that it runs in process instead of spawning a new process. Would you like to investigate on this? I had contact to Rob Prouse of the nunit developers. It might be a good idea to crosspost to nunit-discuss. On 21 Jan 2018 11:21 a.m., "Stefan

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 21 Jan 2018 11:28 a.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I have looked at the assert that fails. For one there's a comment on it > saying that "on linux locking seems to not behave as one would expect". > Second the assert is w

Re: [log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

On 28 Jan 2018 11:45 a.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Sometimes it is possible to configure the test runner so that it runs in > process instead of spawning a new process. Would you like to investigate on > this? I don't see any

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 28 Jan 2018 11:43 a.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: On 2018-01-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 21 Jan 2018 11:28 a.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> Maybe, yes. See the other thread for my investigation so far. The >> github issue I've linked and the sourc

[log4net] dotnet test host process crashes or hangs when run by jenkins docker container

Hi, I am reaching out to you wearing the hat of the apache log4net community. I'll give you some context first. We are in the process of automating the builds and tests for our various targeted frameworks. We still struggle with gettibg the netstandard-1.3 tests to work. Some time ago I already h

Re: XmlLayoutSchemaLog4j invalid character exception

; > > Example XML with the change above made: > > > > level="INFO" thread="1" *xmlns:log4j="log4net"*> > >Starting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Migrate git repositories to gitbox

+1 Also for the log4net repository. On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, 23:59 Remko Popma, wrote: > +1 > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Gary > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018, 17:12 Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > > This is a vote to migrate from the existing git-wip-us inf

Re: NuGet package ID prefix reservation

Thanks for sharing this idea! I'm a great fan of this. Please do not misunderstand my late response, lately spare time has become really rare, sorry. Further I hope that in the near future, we may decide to split up log4net into multiple packages. This trend can be observed about everywhere, also l

Re: Async Appenders

+1 :-) I only have very limited time frames available to hack on log4net but am happy to help wherever help is needed. For instance we have to fix the build pipeline to have something to rely on and allow contributions to be sanity checked by tests. On 8 May 2018 5:05 p.m., "Matt Sicker" wrote:

Re: Async Appenders

When implementing the async/await paradigm it would have to be provided as a logging event api and continuously invoked with async down to the appender implementations in order for the application code to benefit from true async behavior. Or am I wrong here? On 2018-05-09 13:48, William Davis

Re: Async Appenders

, an alternative wait strategy is to busy-spin but this means > > dedicating a core to logging which is a hefty price. In the disruptor > this > > is configurable so if log4j users really want to they can have lock-free > > logging in return for dedicating a cpu core.

Re: Async Appenders

didn't design Java. :) > > On 9 May 2018 at 13:09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > Disclaimer: so far I never had to use a library like LMAX disruptor. > After > > a lot of brain that I spent into the new async/await approach that's > > available today I even t

Re: Async Appenders

k io which also explains more in-depth details of how it works: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/concepts/async/ As a starting point it surely takes time to grasp and caused me some headache. :-) 2018-05-09 20:33 GMT+02:00 Dominik Psenner : > I don't kn

Re: Async Appenders

> > > essentially deferred functions to be executed along with any curried > > state. > > > It essentially allows you to pause a computation, but you can't use > > things > > > like locks and notifications since those are implemented via threads, > and

Re: Async Appenders

GMT+02:00 William Davis : > Perhaps, but looking at that implementation I see that it is locking in a > few places on append. Could this be made a little better by using built in > ConcurrentCollection types like the ConcurrentQueue? > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Dominik P

Re: Async Appenders

licit support for it. (with > out any additional effort) > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Dominik Psenner > wrote: > > > Sure. This will however block by itself and take care of preserving > > compatibility with the ancient frameworks. With this mentioned, today

Re: Async Appenders

ots of logs :) I'll reach out to Nick at SE and see if > he can expound upon his previous message. > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Dominik Psenner > wrote: > > > Interesting discussion in that pull request, yet it's missing links to > hard > > facts what th

Re: [log4net] dotnet test host process crashes or hangs when run by jenkins docker container

T+01:00 Dominik Psenner : > *bump* > > Has anyone out there an idea how we could troubleshoot the issue or any > ideas what else we could do? > > > > On 2018-02-03 11:51, Dominik Psenner wrote: > >> The first message was rejected by the mailing list, pl

[log4net] ci pipeline

ither. Cheers -- Dominik Psenner

[log4net] crafting the next release

Hi, our CI is ready to supply us with binaries along with the log4net website. This will be the first time that binaries from the CI are shipped as a release. Therefore we seek out for volunteers who evaluate the CI binaries [1]. Doing so is a great help and allows us to take the next steps o

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

n Tue, 12 Jun 2018, 18:54 Matt Sicker, wrote: > Will you be signing and uploading them locally or via Jenkins? > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:05, Dominik Psenner > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > our CI is ready to supply us with binaries along with the log4net > &g

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

ly and build the releases locally. Matt, I think, has been talking about the PGP signature on the resulting ZIPs. At least I wouldn't trust any key that can be used by Jenkins :-) Stefan On 2018-06-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: That's an interesting question to ask. As I see it, ci should

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

of storing credentials. However, I don’t know if > there is a way to limit which jobs can use the credentials. > > Ralph > > > On Jun 13, 2018, at 6:48 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > > > On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > >> As far as I

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

Am Fr., 15. Juni 2018 um 10:53 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bodewig < bode...@apache.org>: > On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > That is possible. I restricted access to the github token to the log4net > > build job only. Stefan, would you like to try whether you can gain

Re: [VOTE] Migrate git repositories to gitbox

ood point on the clarification. I said all git repos, and that > > actually > > >>>> entails: > > >>>> > > >>>> * chainsaw > > >>>> * log4cxx > > >>>> * log4j2 and all its repos > > >>>> * log4net

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, 09:12 Stefan Bodewig, wrote: > On 2018-06-17, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > Am Fr., 15. Juni 2018 um 10:53 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bodewig < > > bode...@apache.org>: > > >> On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > >>> That is p

Re: [VOTE] Migrate git repositories to gitbox

something worth to be shared with everyone. On 18 June 2018 at 13:22, Dominik Psenner wrote: Moving to gitbox would give github users ci outputs and thus provide automated feedbacks from ci when pull requests are built. https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile# issue/INFRA-144

Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

Hi Bart, thanks for your interest in log4net. There's an issue for this and we have an open pull request that adds this target. We have however no plan yet of when this should happen. By targeting log4net against netstandard-1.3 it can be referenced from that netstandard and any netstandard f

Re: AdoNetAppenderIssue Multithreaded Application Freeze

ads just never finish there > Do() Method > > > > So if I skip the part where I Recreate the database (with DROP und CREATE > Database), then it works. > > Also if put a log statement after the recreation of the database but > BEFORE the multithreaded part starts, it also works. > > > > Please advise what to do, is this the right place to address such an issue > or should it be posted as an issue on jira? > > > > Greets > > Sebastian Morgenbesser > > > > > -- Dominik Psenner

Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

On 2018-07-19 22:17, sean.co...@gmail.com wrote: Dominik, There are a number of issues in your tracker that are directly related to sticking with NetStandard 1.3. That was an early release and must have been painful to try to do a full implementation of Log4Net. 2 issues dear to me are Va

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: Log4j 2 3.x #148

Jenkins slaves currently have very low disk space. This may be a out of disk space in disguise. On Sat, 21 Jul 2018, 14:12 Rob Tompkins, wrote: > Looks like Jenkins timed out on checkout or something. > > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 1:08 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > > No idea. > > > > Ralph > > > >

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: logging-log4net » PR-24 #1

I assume that nant was purged from this node with the last infrastructure update. I can well understand this decision because nant is an abandoned tool that is heavily outdated. We should have moved away from it already. Unfortunately this means rewriting all the build scripts that automate bui

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: logging-log4net » PR-24 #1

codebase. It resembles much on what was already done with modularizing log4j into api, core etc. On 2018-07-31 15:09, Matt Sicker wrote: Is it possible to run nant in a Docker container? I’m not too familiar with Windows containers. On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 06:55, Dominik Psenner wrote: I

Re: Vacation

Please install a radio jammer and enjoy the time! :-) On 2018-09-17 02:57, Gary Gregory wrote: I've been told all beach umbrellas form a mesh network. No escape. Gary On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:38 PM Remko Popma wrote: Don’t the beaches have Wi-Fi? Just kidding. :-) Enjoy! On Sep 17, 2

LOG4NET: LOG4NET-611

diff: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/commit/e769e01b85db9a8afe22ff8fdd6cc4d8f0c8ee34 I am inclined to drop support for partially trusted environments also for the other targets. If that's not a path that you can walk, then we should talk. Cheers -- Dominik Psenner

Re: log4net / .ner core 2.1 / SmtpAppender

Hi Michael, it's great to see your interest in log4net. I'm responding inline .. On 2018-10-22 04:14, Michael Karmazin (public) wrote: Hi Dominik, I've got your email from the log4net repo on GitHub - sorry if it's a wrong way to contact the log4net team, but I did not find any other. There

Fwd: log4net / .ner core 2.1 / SmtpAppender

Apparently I forgot to add dev at logging dot apache dot org to the recipients. Here comes the last message as a forward. -- Forwarded message - From: Dominik Psenner Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 13:57 Subject: Re: log4net / .ner core 2.1 / SmtpAppender To: Michael Karmazin (public

Re: Filename too long

. -- Dominik Psenner On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 07:22 Ralph Goers Never mind. Figured out the solution. > > Ralph > > > On Dec 1, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > > Gary, when I clone the git repo to my Windows VM I am getting the error > message > > >

Re: [log4net] RollingFileAppender extension that backs up only a last specified period (days, hours, etc.)

Hi Farhan, it's great to see your interest in the logging framework log4net. I'm commenting inline below .. On 2018-12-13 23:31, Farhan Nasim wrote: Have encountered a scenario in many projects where log files covering only a last user specified period is needed (e.g. last 5 days, last 3 hour

Re: [log4net] RollingFileAppender extension that backs up only a last specified period (days, hours, etc.)

On 2018-12-19 20:55, Farhan Nasim wrote: 1. Thanks for informing about the 'next generation' RollingFileAppender. I have been going through your feature branch and it seems to be the right futuristic path. I'd like to contribute to it. Awesome! Let me know if I can help you in any way. 2. How

Re: Filename too long

Thanks Thorsten! I was not aware of these changes. Finally a step into the right direction. I wonder when the (not so) "special" characters ":?" will become acceptable in file and directory names.. -- Dominik Psenner On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 11:22 Thorsten Schöning Guten Tag D

Re: Do I need to clear programmatic loggers/appenders

://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2009/09/29/pushing-the-limits-of-windows-handles/ -- Dominik Psenner On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 12:00 Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > You are creating millions of loggers? Meaning either of > > - I have a million different logger Id's, and create a logg

Re: Is Log4Net project abandoned?

n the foreseeable future. To repopulate the set of developers we could lower the bar for adding new committers. We could also push log4net back to incubation. What do you think? -- Dominik Psenner On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 17:22 Matt Sicker wrote: > It is not abandoned; it is in need of more developers

Re: Is Log4Net project abandoned?

means that the decision is obviously community driven. So long people step up and get involved the project is healthy. Me being the only one to do releases, review and apply PR, etc does not scale. Any contribution is welcome! Best regards -- Dominik Psenner On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 20:00 Kabilan VK

Re: Is Log4Net project abandoned?

me of what I read indicates some developers moving in that direction. > > > > Any comments? > > > > Mike > > > > Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > > > From: Dominik Psenner > > Sent: Monday, Sept

Re: Log4Net Extensions for ASPNet Core

ave written a small project that hooks log4net into asp net core > architecture and am looking to publish the package to nuget under the > apache foundation. > > > > Brian > > > > > > Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker > -- Dominik Psenner

Re: Problem in RollingFileAppender and ConsoleAppender .net core log4net

Hi Shubham Jain, welcome to this mailing list. Plese consider subscribing to avoid future manual interventions by a human moderator. The application works with consoleappender enabled when run from console. This indicates to me that the issue is related to the environment in headless mode. The sy

Re: [Discuss] Retire Log4net to the attic.

logger?view=dotnet-plat-ext-3.1 [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.extensions.dependencyinjection?view=dotnet-plat-ext-3.1 -- Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Move Log4net to dormant state

+1 -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 16:44 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:23 AM Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > Seeing as there have been no volunteers after my last message regarding > > Log4Net, I propo

Re: [VOTE] Log4Net dormant release

+1 -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 09:21 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > +1 > > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020, 00:25 Ralph Goers wrote: > > > I have modified the STATUS.txt and README.txt for Log4Net, tagged the > > source, zipped it and then p

Re: Log4Net

Thanks Ralph for taking care of this. -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Sun, Apr 5, 2020, 02:28 Ralph Goers wrote: > The steps to mark Log4jNet as inactive were: > > 1. Create a tag of the source. > 2. Create an archive of the source to be place

Re: log4net: resurrection

; (I've had > >>>>>>>>>>> reasonable experience, but not with pipelines)). I'm not even > sure what > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> state of play is for that infra. I'm sure there are good > reasons for > >>>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>>>> the project dormant -- some of those may include the desire to > free up > >>>>>>>>>>> infra which could be used elsewhere (or just not paid for). > >>>>>>>>>>> As I say, I'd like to keep log4net alive. I see a few options > here: > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. I learn your infra and your processes. I integrate and try > to keep > >>>>>>>>>>> things pretty-much as they were (though I'm sure some things > would have > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> change -- all things do). I don't mind spending the time > learning the > >>>>>>>>>>> domain, if that's agreeable to everyone and the project > retains it's > >>>>>>>>>>> original branding and status. One thing I'm concerned about > here is the > >>>>>>>>>>> dormant backlog > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. As above, with a bit of a clean-slate philosophy: I'd like > to remove > >>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>>>>> backlog items that aren't critical and start with the least > outstanding > >>>>>>>>>>> stuff possible. If a report is important, it will be reported > again. > >>>>>>>>>> Trying > >>>>>>>>>>> to trace down the authors and origins of 2+year-old reports is > going to > >>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>> frustrating. Issues which aren't attended to just become noise > in the > >>>>>>>>>>> backlog, imo. > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. I fork and perform the "clean slate" approach of above, > inviting > >>>>>>>>>> others > >>>>>>>>>>> to use my variant and log issues there. Uptake will naturally > be slow (if > >>>>>>>>>>> even noticeable), which will give me time to deal with > incoming issues. > >>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>> the other hand, I'd have full control and no need to bother > anyone else. > >>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>>> would have to come up with a new name and make it clear that > it's a fork, > >>>>>>>>>>> though also make it clear I'd be standing on the shoulders of > giants. > >>>>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like (1) because it keeps the project that > people rely on > >>>>>>>>>>> alive. Since I'm new to the mailing list, I can't discern yet > the > >>>>>>>>>> sentiment > >>>>>>>>>>> towards the project, except that everyone was quite happy to > have it made > >>>>>>>>>>> dormant, so it feels like there's not a lot of desire to keep > it going -- > >>>>>>>>>>> which is ok: everything comes to an end at some point, and, as > stated > >>>>>>>>>>> earlier, I'm sure there are good reasons for making log4net > dormant. As a > >>>>>>>>>>> consumer of log4net, I'd much rather not have to switch over > to another > >>>>>>>>>>> framework once there's an issue which affects me more than my > logged one > >>>>>>>>>>> (inability to flush logs -- it was on a proof-of-concept > project, so it > >>>>>>>>>>> isn't _that_ important to have the functionality right now). > >>>>>>>>>>> Apologies for the rambling message. I was prompted to reach > out by Ralph > >>>>>>>>>>> Goers in the discussion for LOG4NET-606, so I hope I haven't > been a > >>>>>>>>>> bother. > >>>>>>>>>>> -d > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>> *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. * > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matt Sicker > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker > > > -- Dominik Psenner

Re: [Log4Net]: resurrection

You may find the develop and other branches useful: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/tree/develop/buildtools/docker There are dockerfiles along with shell scripts that used to work for building sev

Re: [Log4Net]: resurrection

greatly integrate with msbuild inline tasks which could be used to build site and other non-code assemblies: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/msbuild/msbuild-inline-tasks?view=vs-2019 Cheers, Dominik On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 10:41, Dominik Psenner wrote: > You may find the develop

Re: [log4net] CI server question

As apache folks, we have the benefit of sponsored msdn subscriptions and thus some sponsored computing time in azure. May that be an option? I dont know about the tasks involved. I can also think of cross compiling on ubuntu inside docker by leveraging dotnet-sdk and linking against the reference

Re: [log4net] CI server question

a good build environment, which I'm probably going to > try > to replicate in docker, though that would still require a windows host. > > -d > > > On April 27, 2020 21:07:50 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > As apache folks, we have the benefit of sponsored msdn subsc

Re: [CVE-2018-1285] XXE vulnerability in Apache log4net

The fix has been committed for some time now and is available with all branches that I know. You are affected by this CVE if your application consumes configuration files from untrusted sources, especially in dtd statements. 1. You should assert that your deployment does not rely on dtd processing

Re: [CVE-2018-1285] XXE vulnerability in Apache log4net

Good Day!> > > > > > > Is there any mitigation or vulnerability fix available for .NET Core> > > > frameworks?> > > > > > > Please let me know.> > > > > > > Regards> > > > Suthish> > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker > -- Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Log4Net dormant release

Hi Shushi Kant, There is no maintainer to release binaries for You. A source only release was made some time ago, also to signal the dormant state of the project. This was aimed to be a signal to interesting parties to get involved in the project. I see at least these options: Option 1 is to get

Re: [VOTE] Log4Net dormant release

wrote: > Unfortunately, I had to moderate the message you just responded to so I am > not sure if they will see the response. That said, I don’t think we should > be cc’ing posters. They should subscribe. > > Ralph > > > On Jul 30, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Dominik Psenner wrote

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 2.0.9

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 2.0.9

gt; If it's of interest to anyone, my profile is at > https://www.nuget.org/profiles/davydm > > -d > > > On August 17, 2020 18:46:50 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > I guess that would be a nuget publish. > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/nuget-or

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 2.0.9

sn’t used to sign the document. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>>> On Aug 21, 2020, at 3:53 PM, Ralph Goers > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dominik, > >>>> > >>>> The README file says that the keys

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 2.0.9

y > Microsoft > account for nuget is this email address (dav...@gmail.com) > > -d > > > On August 22, 2020 19:46:45 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I recall that we were forced to transform the nuget account > Apache.Logging ( > > https:

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 2.0.9

McColl wrote: > Oh ok, well, mine is davydm (: > > -d > > > On August 22, 2020 20:49:59 Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > Apparently it cant be the email but must be the nuget accounts username, > > apologies. > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone.

Log4net: Insecure site url on nuget

Hi, I noticed that the site url of the log4net nuget package is http instead of https (http://logging.apache.org/log4net/) and propose to update it. See: https://www.nuget.org/packages/log4net/ Best regards -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them.

Log4net: 2.0.9 release notes missing

Hi People noticed that the release notes of 2.0.9 are missing while they should be documented here: http://logging.apache.org/log4net/release/release-notes.html Best regards -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them.

Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.10

Hi Does this break support for netstandard1.3 and enforces users to update all their dependants? Best regards -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Sun, Sep 6, 2020, 21:04 Davyd McColl wrote: > Hi all > > > I'd like to propose a vote to release 2.0

Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

In the past security vulnerabilities were reported via nuget and it is not a good idea to publish those in an automated way. I suggest to update the nuget project documentation and prominently point to our mailing lists and discourage the communication via nuget. Users may continue sending message

Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

ucky ones if it will help (: > >> > >> -d > >> > >> > >> On September 8, 2020 17:47:57 Matt Sicker wrote: > >> > >> > The main problem with sending nuget info to the PMC is that nobody in > >> > the PMC are working on

Re: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

ce the > user to follow the link to the web site. > > Ralph > > > On Sep 8, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Dominik Psenner wrote: > > > > This reflects my impression that the volume of individuals that do not > know > > the mechanics of the mailing lists has increased. I

Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release log4net 2.0.10

Hi Sorry to not have responded earlier. Time is short and the days are busy. I looked at the diff and found several suspicious changes. Several hundred ifdefs have been removed/replaced along with tests. Therefore I have a bad feeling about those changes without further careful checking. I propose

Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release log4net 2.0.10

functional: > - install node if you don't have it yet (I suggest via nvm) > - `npm ci` > - `npm test` > > (assuming that you have all the required build targets -- there are helper > .ps1 scripts to get the older targets -- netcore 1.1 and netfx35) > > -d > > >

Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.10

at mostly I just want to deprecate > client profiles to enable easier cross-platform dev (those are the only > targets I haven't had joy supporting on Linux so far) > > -d > > > > On September 7, 2020 19:55:51 Dominik Psenner > wrote: > > Hi > > Does

Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

See the message below. Apparently something went wrong during the last release. -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. -- Forwarded message - From: NuGet Gallery Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 12:10 Subject: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of

Re: [VOTE] [log4net] Release 2.0.11

+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

Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

See the message below. -- Sent from my phone. -- Forwarded message - From: NuGet Gallery Date: Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 07:51 Subject: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net' To: *User santoshkallatti > sends the following message to the owners of Package 'log4net

Re: Fwd: [NuGet Gallery] Message for owners of the package 'log4net'

, Dominik On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 20:52, Davyd McColl wrote: > Hi Dominik > > iirc, this was fixed in 2.0.11. 2.0.12, with another fix for current user > name on !win32, is waiting on one more +1 vote for release. > > -d > > On October 23, 2020 18:05:18 Dominik Psenner wro

Re: [VOTE] Move Log4PHP to dormant status

+1 -- Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find them. On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 19:59 Christian Grobmeier wrote: > Very sad, but +1. > > Code base became very old and there is lots to do. > > -- > The Apache Software Foundation > V.P., Data Privacy > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2

Re: Revamping website design and logo

Hi, in the past some effort has been made to make all log4xxx project websites look alike. If the site design should be changed, I propose to expand the discussion to the other projects. Greets, Dominik -- Sent from my phone. On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 18:33 Ralph Goers wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 20

[log4net] [Discuss] migration to git

Hi, As of today log4net is about one of the last logging subprojects that still uses svn and it makes sense to me that we migrate also this subproject over to git. What do you think? Cheers, Dominik

Re: [log4net] [Discuss] migration to git

Looks like people silently agree. Therefore I'm going start a vote to migrate the log4net repository over to git on Tuesday around 08:00 AM UTC unless objections pop up. On 2017-04-13 10:28, Gary Gregory wrote: Got for it! :-) Gary On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Dominik Psenner

[log4net] [VOTE] migrate log4net from svn to git

This is a vote to migrate the source code of the log4net subproject from subversion over to git. [ ] +1, yes let's migrate to git [ ] 0, I don't care because... [ ] -1, don't migrate to git because... The vote will remain open for 72 hours at least. All votes are welcome and we encourage every

Re: [log4net] [VOTE] migrate log4net from svn to git

Apologies, just noticed that I had a typo in the vote. Sorry for that. Please apply this patch: - As always, at least 3 + 1s are more +1s than -1s are required. + As always, at least 3 + 1s and more +1s than -1s are required. Dominik 2017-04-18 14:37 GMT+02:00 Dominik Psenner : > This i

Re: Log4net website issue

Hi, We probably should at least add a remark that points readers to the SDK reference and avoid the double effort of maintaining the documentation on the website too. Cheers, Dominik On 2017-04-18 17:09, Stefan Bodewig wrote: Hi John On 2017-04-18, John V wrote: Please forward this if y

Re: Log4net website issue

verify the example code in the docs would also be good, but having those code samples be included straight from unit tests or test resources would be a good way to ensure both. On 18 April 2017 at 10:16, Dominik Psenner wrote: Hi, We probably should at least add a remark that points read

Re: Log4net website issue

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2017-04-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: We probably should at least add a remark that points readers to the SDK reference and avoid the double effort of maintaining the documentation on the website too. Likely, in particular since we've broken it twice during the 2.0.x re

Re: Log4net website issue

On 2017-04-19 10:13, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2017-04-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: From a higher perspective I would also like to see all logging subprojects to have one website style. Looking at the website of log4net and log4j those projects appear to be unrelated, whereas the log4cxx and

  1   2   3   4   >