Great! How do we get the nupkg to nuget.org? This is the final step that most users are going to be interested in.
Having a look at what's at the url you posted, I have ideas on how to streamline future releases, so the next time I'm in that area, I'm definitely implementing those ideas. I don't see changes to the Release Notes area -- if I were to try to streamline that into a release, would a CHANGELOG file be useful? Or is there a better way? -d On 2020/08/16 23:26:07, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: I committed them to dist already. I don't know how long we should wait for any mirroring to catch up, though on my end, I see updated artifacts on https://downloads.apache.org/logging/log4net/ other than the release notes. On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 15:09, Ralph Goers wrote: > > +1 to that! > > Let me know when these are published. I can update the web site to reflect > that it is no longer dormant. > > Ralph > > > On Aug 16, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > Thanks so much for your help in releasing this! > > > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> > >> I'll make changes to the automated build to affect all changes you have > >> made (and perhaps will make) automatically to future releases for the next > >> release. Apologies for making this more difficult than it needs to be (: > >> > >> -d > >> > >> > >> On August 16, 2020 20:37:01 Matt Sicker wrote: > >> > >>> Just a simple copy of the LICENSE and NOTICE file into the binaries > >>> zip, and a rename of the files to include "apache" in the name. I've > >>> uploaded them to dist along with updating the KEYS file for log4net, > >>> though that should probably be merged together with the project-wide > >>> KEYS file in the parent directory. There's an outdated README.html in > >>> the directory still containing the old release notes, but we can > >>> address that next. > >>> > >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:12, Matt Sicker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> One issue I found in one of the artifacts that I can address before > >>>> uploading since it wasn't signed is the binaries zip is missing the > >>>> LICENSE file. I'm not sure if there's a standard way to include that > >>>> in the nupkg file, but I did see that in its metadata, it explicitly > >>>> says the code is Apache2 licensed at least. > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2020 at 13:03, Matt Sicker wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll sign and publish the artifacts today. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 17:43, Ralph Goers wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Remko. That makes 3 +1 votes from PMC members. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Aug 3, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Remko Popma wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 Remko. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:04 AM Matt Sicker wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 from me. We can handle the release signing afterwards as Ralph > >>>> suggests. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Ralph Goers > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Can other PMC members please review this? It has been more than 72 > >>>>>>>> hours. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ralph > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 11:17 PM, Davyd McColl > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, I've never done this before, so bear with me if I fluff it: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is a proposed vote to release log4net 2.0.9 from PR > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/pull/61 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Release artifacts (including source zip) are at: > >>>>>>>> > >>>> https://ci.appveyor.com/project/fluffynuts/logging-log4net/builds/34063235/artifacts > >>>>>>>>>> Source can be checked out from > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/fluffynuts/logging-log4net/logging-log4net, tag > >>>>>>>> rel/ > >>>>>>>> 2.0.9. I can't push tags to the upstream, but this tag is exactly the > >>>>>>>> same commit as the last in the PR mentioned above, which was > >>>> accepted into > >>>>>>>> master a few days ago. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Please check out the artifacts & if everyone is ok with what's > >>>>>>>>>> there, > >>>>>>>> please can someone with the rights to publish to nuget do so. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Once I've seen how this process works, I'd like to tackle the CVE > >>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> has been brought up on this list more than once -- it's a simple > >>>>>>>> change > >>>>>>>> which was already committed to the develop branch some time ago, so > >>>> there > >>>>>>>> are a couple of options here: > >>>>>>>>>> 1. cherry-pick that commit & do a 2.0.10 release pronto, with only > >>>>>>>> that change > >>>>>>>>>> 2. trawl the develop branch to see what else was already solved in > >>>>>>>> there, and get that out as 2.0.10, and perhaps close out that branch > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> avoid future confusion. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time > >>>>>>>>>> -d > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Matt Sicker > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Matt Sicker > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Matt Sicker > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matt Sicker > > > > > > > > -- > > Matt Sicker > > > > -- Matt Sicker
