LOG4J2-3228 - Remove support for Serializable
I’ve opened https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1199 to handle this issue. The vast majority of the changes are from replacing `Layout`. Please take a look and provide any feedback.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j Tools 0.1.0
+1 Thanks for working on this! Looks great! > On Jan 10, 2023, at 4:55 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > The Apache Log4j Tools 0.1.0 release is now available for voting. > > The 0.1.0 version is the very first release of this relatively old > repository, which is repurposed for `log4j-changelog`, Log4j's > `maven-changes-plugin` successor. This enables us to build the Log4j > website (incl. manual) in less than 30 seconds and use multiple issue > trackers, e.g., JIRA and GitHub Issues. All these Log4j improvements > are already submitted as PRs against the `release-2.x` branch and > waiting for this `log4j-tools` release. > > `log4j-changelog` README: > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools/blob/master/log4j-changelog/README.adoc > > This release also constitutes another milestone in the history of ASF: > *the very first release signed and deployed via CI.* > > Source repository: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools > Branch: release/0.1.0 > Commit: e82a44142280d013bd76ea18951fde00dcee192b > CI run: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools/actions/runs/3882476949 > Artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4j/ > Nexus repository: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelogging-1096 > Signing key: > https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=077e8893a6dcc33dd4a4d5b256e73ba9a0b592d0&fingerprint=on&op=index > > Please download, test, and cast your votes on the Log4j developers list. > > [ ] +1, release the artifacts > [ ] -1, don't release, because... > > The vote will remain open for 24 hours (or more if required). All > votes are welcome and we encourage everyone to test the release, but > only the Logging Services PMC votes are officially counted. At least 3 > +1 votes and more positive than negative votes are required.
Re: [log4cxx] Next steps / release?
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 08:40:57PM -0500, Robert Middleton wrote: > The release has been formally completed at this point; mirrors have > their copy of the official tar.gz file. log4xx 1.0.0 just migrated to Debian/testing, so the transistio is done :) -- tobi > -Robert Middleton > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:36 AM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 10:45:37PM -0500, Robert Middleton wrote: > > > Awesome! Thanks for the packaging work that you do. Once we get it > > > voted on you should have a proper release. > > > > FYI, release-team acked the transistion and we've got the go to do the > > transition. So once the proper release is available, I now could upload > > it to unstable for the final steps needed to complete the transition, > > but I prefer to do this with the final release. > > > > Do you have an ETA when the release will become available? (It's still > > a bit time critical…) > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > tobi > > > > -- > > tobi > > > > > -Robert Middleton > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 2:52 PM Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > > > > > Update: > > > > > > > > FTP masters have been very quick and approved the package, so the > > > > snapshot is > > > > already in experimental. [1] > > > > > > > > I've also rebuilt all reverse depdencies successfully and asked the > > > > release team > > > > to approve the transition. [2] > > > > > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/log4cxx > > > > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1027746 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > > > tobi > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 10:52:43AM +0100, Tobias Frost wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 05:21:34PM -0500, Robert Middleton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The last time we talked about this Tobias Frost said that the > > > > > > soft-freeze for Debian is the 12th of January[1], so after that > > > > > > point > > > > > > an updated library wouldn't make it into Debian. I would like to > > > > > > get > > > > > > this version into Debian if possible(as that is the distribution I > > > > > > use), but that depends on Tobias' availability. > > > > > > > > > > To have a chance to make that happen, I've started the transistion > > > > > workflow [1]. > > > > > TBH, due to the soft freeze is in less than two weeks, changes are > > > > > high that > > > > > we won't make it, but at least I want to have tried it. > > > > > > > > > > The first step is "Upload your new version to experimental (and have > > > > > it clear > > > > > NEW)", which is what I've just have done: I've uploaded a snapshot > > > > > (commit > > > > > cbd23ff1) to debian experimental. This needs now to be approved by > > > > > the (Debian) > > > > > ftp masters, which is (usually) for such a change quick, but if they > > > > > aren't or > > > > > not happy for any reason, this can spoil the game. [2] > > > > > > > > > > Only after that, I can ask for a transition slot from the release > > > > > team. If they are > > > > > not happy with a transition that late (IOW that short before the > > > > > freeze), well > > > > > that will be something I have to accept and that will mean 1.0.0 not > > > > > in > > > > > bookworm. > > > > > > > > > > In parallel I'll see if the reverse dependencies are still building > > > > > with the > > > > > new version, as for any breakage I will need to have patches > > > > > available… > > > > > > > > > > So, let's see how it works out. > > > > > > > > > > [1] if you want to know the details: > > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions > > > > > [2] It needs to go through NEW due to the binary package rename, due > > > > > to the SONAME bump. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > tobi
Re: LOG4J2-3228 - Remove support for Serializable
Is the generic needed at all? Gary On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, 12:19 Matt Sicker wrote: > I’ve opened https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1199 to handle > this issue. The vast majority of the changes are from replacing `Layout extends Serializable` with just `Layout`. Please take a look and provide > any feedback.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j Tools 0.1.0
+1 On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 2:21 AM Matt Sicker wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for working on this! Looks great! > > > On Jan 10, 2023, at 4:55 AM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > > > The Apache Log4j Tools 0.1.0 release is now available for voting. > > > > The 0.1.0 version is the very first release of this relatively old > > repository, which is repurposed for `log4j-changelog`, Log4j's > > `maven-changes-plugin` successor. This enables us to build the Log4j > > website (incl. manual) in less than 30 seconds and use multiple issue > > trackers, e.g., JIRA and GitHub Issues. All these Log4j improvements > > are already submitted as PRs against the `release-2.x` branch and > > waiting for this `log4j-tools` release. > > > > `log4j-changelog` README: > > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools/blob/master/log4j-changelog/README.adoc > > > > This release also constitutes another milestone in the history of ASF: > > *the very first release signed and deployed via CI.* > > > > Source repository: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools > > Branch: release/0.1.0 > > Commit: e82a44142280d013bd76ea18951fde00dcee192b > > CI run: > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j-tools/actions/runs/3882476949 > > Artifacts: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4j/ > > Nexus repository: > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelogging-1096 > > Signing key: > https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?search=077e8893a6dcc33dd4a4d5b256e73ba9a0b592d0&fingerprint=on&op=index > > > > Please download, test, and cast your votes on the Log4j developers list. > > > > [ ] +1, release the artifacts > > [ ] -1, don't release, because... > > > > The vote will remain open for 24 hours (or more if required). All > > votes are welcome and we encourage everyone to test the release, but > > only the Logging Services PMC votes are officially counted. At least 3 > > +1 votes and more positive than negative votes are required. > >
Re: LOG4J2-3228 - Remove support for Serializable
Not really I guess? Layout already extends Encoder, and the only reasonable return value now is String since byte[] is already covered by another method, and ByteBuffer is covered by the Encoder interface. That could further simplify things! — Matt Sicker > On Jan 11, 2023, at 14:50, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Is the generic needed at all? > > Gary > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023, 12:19 Matt Sicker wrote: > >> I’ve opened https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/1199 to handle >> this issue. The vast majority of the changes are from replacing `Layout> extends Serializable` with just `Layout`. Please take a look and provide >> any feedback.
