Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4cxx 1.3.0

Notes(none of these are blockers): * Fuzzing page doesn't render correctly(https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4cxx/1.3.0/fuzzing.html) * The review kit link leads to a 404?? * SHA256 sums are not needed, but it doesn't hurt to add. I checked only the SHA512 sums. * The new release is missing a f

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4cxx 1.3.0

I think it's a bit confusing to have both 256 and 512 sha files. We shouldn't imo give the impression that you should check both. One is plenty imo, 512. Gary On Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 7:05 AM Robert Middleton wrote: > Notes(none of these are blockers): > * Fuzzing page doesn't render > correctly(h

[log4cxx] Fuzzers page doesn't render correctly (Was: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4cxx 1.3.0)

Thanks for the heads up, Robert! Fixed in eaab90254946715f690e60d5b33f15eca43dcefd . On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 1:06 PM Robert Middleton wrote: > Notes(none of these are blockers): > * Fuzzing page doesn't r

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4cxx 1.3.0

The Conan package manager (a leading C++ package manager) uses Sha256. On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, 11:11 pm Gary Gregory, wrote: > I think it's a bit confusing to have both 256 and 512 sha files. We > shouldn't imo give the impression that you should check both. One is plenty > imo, 512. > > Gary > >