Hi
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 11:01, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> Staging website has been broken since October 10, that is, the last two
> weeks – please, correct me if I'm wrong. I support Christian's Jekyll
> migration and I know he is blocked by INFRA.
I have created the issue only 5 days ago, after
Staging website has been broken since October 10, that is, the last two
weeks – please, correct me if I'm wrong. I support Christian's Jekyll
migration and I know he is blocked by INFRA.
1. Do we have a deadline to consider alternative courses of action?
2. Can we implement your Jekyll goal
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 07:36, Stephen Webb wrote:
>
> Hi Piotr,
>
> The Log4cxx staging website URL
> https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4cxx/latest_stable/usage-overview.html
> now reports a 404.
>
> The .asf.yaml contains:
>
> staging:
> profile: ~
> whoami: asf-staging
>
Hi Piotr,
The Log4cxx staging website URL
https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4cxx/latest_stable/usage-overview.html
now reports a 404.
The .asf.yaml contains:
staging:
profile: ~
whoami: asf-staging
subdir: content/log4cxx
Do you have a suggestion as to where I can find it now?
Hi Matt,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 19:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I’ve seen that test fail in CI before as well. I wonder if there’s any
> firewall issues that can interfere with it, or if it relies on some
> potentially unusable state like a common port number.
I switched to ephemeral ports
Here is my own +1
With that, this vote passes with 5x +1 from:
Volkan Yazici
Piotr Karawasz
Gary Gregory
Ralph Goers
Christian Grobmeier
I will proceed with the following steps soon
Thanks to everybody who voted!
Christian
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023, at 11:08, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> This is
I’ve seen that test fail in CI before as well. I wonder if there’s any firewall
issues that can interfere with it, or if it relies on some potentially unusable
state like a common port number.
> On Oct 16, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I enabled that profile. Log4j-core-test failed
I enabled that profile. Log4j-core-test failed after just over 23 minutes.
[INFO]
[INFO] Results:
[INFO]
[ERROR] Failures:
[ERROR]
Hi Ralph,
On Sun, 15 Oct 2023 at 00:49, Ralph Goers wrote:
> My first attempt at building from the source failed with
>
> [ERROR]
>
+1
My first attempt at building from the source failed with
[ERROR]
SyslogAppenderCustomLayoutTest>SyslogAppenderTest.testUDPAppender:80->SyslogAppenderTestBase.sendAndCheckLegacyBsdMessage:75->SyslogAppenderTestBase.checkTheNumberOfSentAndReceivedMessages:113
The number of received messages
Well guess what? Yesterday was Fri 13. I wonder if that confuses the test.
Ralph
> On Oct 14, 2023, at 9:02 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 at 13:56, Gary D. Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I just ran mvn clean verify and I think I need a new machine ;-) I took...
>>
Hi Gary,
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 at 13:56, Gary D. Gregory wrote:
>
> I just ran mvn clean verify and I think I need a new machine ;-) I took... 13
> hours?
This happened also on the CI yesterday (for the first time in several
months IIRC):
I just ran mvn clean verify and I think I need a new machine ;-) I took... 13
hours?
[INFO] Reactor Summary for Apache Log4j BOM 2.21.0:
[INFO]
[INFO] Apache Log4j BOM ... SUCCESS [ 22.553 s]
[INFO] Apache Log4j Parent SUCCESS [
Nevermind. I was using the wrong url.
Ralph
> On Oct 13, 2023, at 8:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I get a 404 trying to access the log4j2 staging web site. Although
> technically not required for a release I am not comfortable voting for the
> release without being able to see the web site.
I get a 404 trying to access the log4j2 staging web site. Although technically
not required for a release I am not comfortable voting for the release without
being able to see the web site.
Ralph
> On Oct 13, 2023, at 6:46 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct
Hi Christian,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 13:46, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Why is content not causing this issue?
> For me both is possible, just trying to understand the best way.
>From what I understand, if a branch (in any repo) has a configuration:
staging:
whoami: name_of_the_branch
>> [1] Christian's recent Jekyll experiment on the `asf-staging` branch
>> of `logging-site` repository confused the INFRA and it is acting
>> strangely. This will *NOT* be an issue when we push the website
>> changes to production, i.e., `asf-site` branch. Though we will try
>> fixing
Hi all,
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 at 12:16, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> ✔ Binaries
> ✔ Sources
> ✔ Website (incl. Javadocs)
> Ă Website URL[1]
> ✔ Signatures
> ✔ Checksums
>
> +1
Same here:
* the binaries in the binary archive, Maven repo and locally
generated are identical. Somehow `log4j-perf` made
✔ Binaries
✔ Sources
✔ Website (incl. Javadocs)
Ă Website URL[1]
✔ Signatures
✔ Checksums
+1
Thanks for taking care of the release Christian!
[1] Christian's recent Jekyll experiment on the `asf-staging` branch
of `logging-site` repository confused the INFRA and it is acting
strangely. This
This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 2.21.0.
Website: https://logging-log4j.staged.apache.org/log4j/2.x/
GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2
Commit: 493d9a9daabc72d10582c4682538baa93a2a
Distribution: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4j
Nexus:
20 matches
Mail list logo
