Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4net 2.0.16

[Volkan Yazıcı]

+1

Verified signatures.
Verified hashes.

`NOTICE` contains 2022 as the copyright year, but I don't find it a
blocker. (I have fixed it in `master`.)

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:19 PM Davyd McColl  wrote:

> Hi all
>
>
> This is the vote to release Apache log4net version 2.0.16
>
>
> Website:
> https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4net/release/release-notes.html
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net
>
> GitHub release (pre-release):
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/2.0.16-rc1
>
> Distribution: I'm not sure -
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net should have
> 2.0.16 binaries and source (I've added via SVN), but I'm not seeing
> them. Any help appreciated.
>
>
>
> Please have a look at the staging site & artifacts and test (if you can
> - clone, `npm i`, `npm test`)
>
> [ ] +1, release the artifacts
>
> [ ] -1, don't release, because
>
>
> (thanks Piotr: I copied most of your last VOTE mail!)
>
>
> -d
>
>

Removal of 2.3.x and 2.12.x websites (was: Clean site repo)

[Piotr P. Karwasz]

Hi all,

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 10:34, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
>
> If there are no objections, after Log4j `2.23.0` and `3.0.0-beta2`
> releases, I want to proceed with replacing the contents of
> `asf-{site,staging}` branches with `clean-staging`. Effectively, this
> operation has the following outcomes:
>
>- The `logging-log4j-site` repository will contain only following files:
>   - `1.x`
>   - `2.12.x`
>   - `2.3.x`
>   - `2.x`
>   - `3.x`
>   - `.asf.yaml`
>   - `changelog-*.xsd`
>   - `extras`
>   - `.htaccess`
>- `.htaccess` will take care of redirections for backward compatibility

I replaced `asf-site` with `asf-staging`. The results for
Log4j-related queries in search engines should slowly converge to one
of `2.x`, `2.3.x` and `2.12.x`.

There is a further simplification possible: since Oracle's extended
support for Java 7 has expired in July 2022, shouldn't we also
redirect the `2.3.x` and `2.12.x` websites to `2.x`?

Piotr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4net 2.0.16

[Jan Friedrich]

+1

Unit tests on my machine were successful.
We integrated the new version into our test environment and all manual tests 
were successful.

Jan

> +1

> Verified signatures.
> Verified hashes.

> `NOTICE` contains 2022 as the copyright year, but I don't find it a
> blocker. (I have fixed it in `master`.)

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:19 PM Davyd McColl  wrote:

>> Hi all
>>
>>
>> This is the vote to release Apache log4net version 2.0.16
>>
>>
>> Website:
>> https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4net/release/release-notes.html
>>
>> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net
>>
>> GitHub release (pre-release):
>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/2.0.16-rc1
>>
>> Distribution: I'm not sure -
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net should have
>> 2.0.16 binaries and source (I've added via SVN), but I'm not seeing
>> them. Any help appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please have a look at the staging site & artifacts and test (if you can
>> - clone, `npm i`, `npm test`)
>>
>> [ ] +1, release the artifacts
>>
>> [ ] -1, don't release, because
>>
>>
>> (thanks Piotr: I copied most of your last VOTE mail!)
>>
>>
>> -d
>>
>>

Re: Removal of 2.3.x and 2.12.x websites (was: Clean site repo)

[Ralph Goers]

> On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:24 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz  wrote:
> 
> There is a further simplification possible: since Oracle's extended
> support for Java 7 has expired in July 2022, shouldn't we also
> redirect the `2.3.x` and `2.12.x` websites to `2.x`?

Why would we do that? I mean we don’t officially support Java 6 or 7 yet we did 
create patches for them for Log4Shell. While I hope they never need to be 
updated again I don’t think it hurts anything to leave the doc alone.

Ralph

Re: Removal of 2.3.x and 2.12.x websites (was: Clean site repo)

[Piotr P. Karwasz]

Hi Ralph,

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:53, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:24 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz  
> > wrote:
> >
> > There is a further simplification possible: since Oracle's extended
> > support for Java 7 has expired in July 2022, shouldn't we also
> > redirect the `2.3.x` and `2.12.x` websites to `2.x`?
>
> Why would we do that? I mean we don’t officially support Java 6 or 7 yet we 
> did create patches for them for Log4Shell. While I hope they never need to be 
> updated again I don’t think it hurts anything to leave the doc alone.

A simple Google search for `ThreadContextMap`:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ThreadContextMap

returns as first result a link to the javadoc of Log4j 2.4. While this
is currently redirected permanently to `/log4j/2.12.x/`, it is still
not the most recent documentation of the interface. How is the user
supposed to know, that this is the documentation for an old version?

We could at least add a banner to all the pages with a link to the
most recent documentation and exclude the `/log4j/2.3.x/` and
`/log4j/2.12.x/` websites from being indexed by search engines.

Piotr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4net 2.0.16

[Ralph Goers]

+1 

Verified signatures
Verified hashes
Verified License and Notice files.

Note - the copyright year should be the first year the code was created. You 
can update it to include “-(currentYear}” but that is not strictly necessary.

Ralph

> On Mar 4, 2024, at 10:48 AM, Jan Friedrich  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> Unit tests on my machine were successful.
> We integrated the new version into our test environment and all manual tests 
> were successful.
> 
> Jan
> 
>> +1
> 
>> Verified signatures.
>> Verified hashes.
> 
>> `NOTICE` contains 2022 as the copyright year, but I don't find it a
>> blocker. (I have fixed it in `master`.)
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 2:19 PM Davyd McColl  wrote:
> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is the vote to release Apache log4net version 2.0.16
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Website:
>>> https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4net/release/release-notes.html
>>> 
>>> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net
>>> 
>>> GitHub release (pre-release):
>>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/2.0.16-rc1
>>> 
>>> Distribution: I'm not sure -
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net should have
>>> 2.0.16 binaries and source (I've added via SVN), but I'm not seeing
>>> them. Any help appreciated.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please have a look at the staging site & artifacts and test (if you can
>>> - clone, `npm i`, `npm test`)
>>> 
>>> [ ] +1, release the artifacts
>>> 
>>> [ ] -1, don't release, because
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (thanks Piotr: I copied most of your last VOTE mail!)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -d
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: Removal of 2.3.x and 2.12.x websites (was: Clean site repo)

[Volkan Yazıcı]

I suggest simply adding a giant banner[1] warning users and compiling a
robots.txt

for SSO.

[1] I believe we can do this by simply editing a couple of CSS files,
instead of modifying every single HTML.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:59 PM Piotr P. Karwasz 
wrote:

> Hi Ralph,
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:53, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:24 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a further simplification possible: since Oracle's extended
> > > support for Java 7 has expired in July 2022, shouldn't we also
> > > redirect the `2.3.x` and `2.12.x` websites to `2.x`?
> >
> > Why would we do that? I mean we don’t officially support Java 6 or 7 yet
> we did create patches for them for Log4Shell. While I hope they never need
> to be updated again I don’t think it hurts anything to leave the doc alone.
>
> A simple Google search for `ThreadContextMap`:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ThreadContextMap
>
> returns as first result a link to the javadoc of Log4j 2.4. While this
> is currently redirected permanently to `/log4j/2.12.x/`, it is still
> not the most recent documentation of the interface. How is the user
> supposed to know, that this is the documentation for an old version?
>
> We could at least add a banner to all the pages with a link to the
> most recent documentation and exclude the `/log4j/2.3.x/` and
> `/log4j/2.12.x/` websites from being indexed by search engines.
>
> Piotr
>