Re: Successor to mailing lists
That is something we can decide together: 1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users will use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so on) 2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create `logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, `Log4Net`, etc. sections there) 3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, `logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., `logging-discuss` with only `General` section) My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, are we willing to take that step? On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:36 PM Robert Middleton wrote: > The one problem I see with Github is that as far as I am aware > discussions are on a per-repository basis, so unless we have a bare > repository with everybody subscribed to it there's no way that I'm > aware of to share information. For example while most of this mailing > list is log4j specific, we also have log4cxx and log4net discussions > happening on here and we can to some extent share resources or > knowledge between the projects. > > -Robert Middleton > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:44 AM Volkan Yazıcı > wrote: > > > > GitHub can be configured to send email notifications. We can route these > > to, say, `notificati...@logging.apache.org` email address to have our > local > > records. > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:01 PM Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > > > I thought this was recently discussed on @members, but now I can't > find the > > > thread! I'm not even sure if it was on @members, which exemplifies the > > > scaling problem discussed on the list, among other issues: When you > look at > > > PonyMail's UI, there are about 60 internal mailing lists under the ' > > > apache.org' project! How am I supposed to find anything? Searching my > > > Gmail > > > inbox didn't help, but I did not look for more than 30 seconds. Having > to > > > search yet another place... > > > > > > This thread I can't find pointed to examples of Reddit like UIs from > FOSS > > > providers. > > > > > > I agree that GH rocks. > > > > > > One topic that remains and is a must, is that wherever the data lives, > it > > > must end up recorded on Apache-owned resources, which GH is not. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Apache > wrote: > > > > > > > I cannot express an opinion without knowing what the replacement is > and > > > > having experience with it. Mailing lists have one great feature - > they > > > are > > > > easy to search. For that reason anything we choose should be just as > easy > > > > or better. We must also stick to a single medium for formal > communication > > > > for the same reason. > > > > > > > > We do have the ability to experiment with whatever we want but votes > need > > > > to continue here until we have ASF approval. > > > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2024, at 3:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier < > grobme...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the > easiest > > > > parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. > > > > > > > > > > I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, > as it > > > > may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). > When a > > > > user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very > overwhelming > > > and > > > > stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. > > > > > > > > > > I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about this > > > move > > > > for the arguments you have given > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > > > >> *Abstract:* Modern email system security measures make it > practically > > > > >> impossible for mailing lists to work – many subscribers don't get > all > > > > >> emails. This not only hinders communication, but blocks an > inclusive > > > > >> one. *Shall > > > > >> we, as Logging Services, experiment with alternatives?* > > > > >> > > > > >> *Motivation #1: mailing lists technically don't work* > > > > >> > > > > >> Several widely-used email providers (GMail, Yahoo, iCloud, etc.) > have > > > in > > > > >> the last couple of years enabled new measures (DMARC, SPF, DKIM, > etc.) > > > > to > > > > >> verify the authenticity of emails. In short, these measures enrich > > > email > > > > >> content with checksums and signatures capturing its authenticity. > > > When a > > > > >> mailing list system (e.g., ezmlm, mailman) receives such an > email, it > > > > >> performs several changes on its content (adds information about > the > > > > mailing > > > > >> list, etc.), and delivers it to all subscribers. When the mail > server > > > > of a > > > > >> subscriber receives such tamper
Re: Adding to Logging KEYS file
The source code is the same for all platforms, so we only need to run it on one builder. I took a brief look earlier, but I'm busy this weekend so I can take a closer look next week. -Robert Middleton On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:10 PM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 08:36, Stephen Webb wrote: > > > > That would be much simpler. I was not aware that option was available. Is > > there an example I can copy? > > I added a prototype as PR #414[1]: > > * I added a `package.sh` script that can be used to generate the > source archives in a reproducible way. I didn't have the patience to > make the script work on the MacOS runner, so it would be nice if > somebody fixes the `tar` invocation to work also with the version on > MacOS. The Windows runner does not have `zip` in the path accessible > to `bash`, so that could be fixed too. > * I modified the `package_code.yml` workflow so it > 1. Builds the source archives and hashes. > 2. Verify reproducibility (macos-latest and windows-latest are disabled) > 3. If the workflow is triggered manually: sign everything and upload to SVN. > > The result is here[2]. You can verify that the `dev` Subversion > repository has all the distribution files for `1.3.0` + e-mails. > > Piotr > > [1] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/414 > [2] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/actions/runs/11296779341
Re: Feature proposal for a new Filter result: Throw
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 4:09 AM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 16:34, Gary D. Gregory wrote: > > My proposal is to allow a user to _not_ define any custom filters by > reusing a new Result enum value called “Throw”. When a filter returns > “Throw”, then Log4j throws a new LoggingException subclass called > FilterLoggingException. > > I find Log4j's 3-valued filtering system already very complex: > > - it is difficult or impossible to make a composite filter for a > moderately complex boolean expression. If you have 3 filters that > check A, B and C, how do you make a filter for `(A OR B) AND C ? > ACCEPT : NEUTRAL`? > I agree that the Filtering system should be different (maybe a predicate tree instead of an array to allow for boolean logic), but these types of changes are way beyond anything I am describing. I am proposing a new feature that fits into the existing system and that would prevent users from writing custom code that is beyond what a casual developer would be comfortable doing (IMO). Gary > - the difference between `ACCEPT` and `NEUTRAL` is never used, except > for global filters[1]. > - writing global filters requires a lot of knowledge about Log4j. For > example the `Throwable` associated with a log event, can be hidden in > one of 3 parameters (see the second `local/script.groovy` example in > the documentation[2]. > > Given that I am not eager to complexify filters with yet another possible > result > > Piotr > > PS: Note, Logback solves the boolean expression in a simple way: it > has an `EvaluatorFilter` that uses a tree of `Predicate` > components to decide, which result to output. > > [1] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/filters.html#logger-stage > [2] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/filters.html#Script >
Re: Successor to mailing lists
Hi Volkan, I would prefer option 1.3, because most of the users will look for discussions in the most relevant Github repo (for them). I'm not a fan of Discourse (another app to install and no integration with Github). Let's try and find out whether it works for us. We need to decide, whether we include voting on topics and releases should be done via Discussions (and get it approved by the ASF in case we want that). What about the private@ and security@ lists? Is it possible to do restricted discssions? Regards. Jan Friday, October 11, 2024, 9:03:31 AM, you wrote: > That is something we can decide together: >1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users will >use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so on) >2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create >`logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, `Log4Net`, etc. >sections there) >3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, >`logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., `logging-discuss` >with only `General` section) > My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, > are we willing to take that step?
Re: Successor to mailing lists
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024, at 19:35, Gary Gregory wrote: > I'm not crazy about having to bounce around sections of various repos in > addition to monitoring emails, which has to be done anyway. It's _another_ > thing to lose track of :-( Having a repo just to use the discussion feature > feels like a hack. > > I wish I could find the thread about new reddit-like FOSS UIs on one of > the @apache.org lists... I feel like we should piggy back this discussion > on that. Wasn’t that on members? I think the idea was to patch up ponymail to be more like Reddit and have some kind of email subscriptions to topics. Also nice, but I guess a lot of work > > Gary > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:02 AM Volkan Yazıcı > wrote: > >> That is something we can decide together: >> >>1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users will >>use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so >> on) >>2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create >>`logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, `Log4Net`, >> etc. >>sections there) >>3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, >>`logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., `logging-discuss` >>with only `General` section) >> >> My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, >> are we willing to take that step? >> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:36 PM Robert Middleton >> wrote: >> >> > The one problem I see with Github is that as far as I am aware >> > discussions are on a per-repository basis, so unless we have a bare >> > repository with everybody subscribed to it there's no way that I'm >> > aware of to share information. For example while most of this mailing >> > list is log4j specific, we also have log4cxx and log4net discussions >> > happening on here and we can to some extent share resources or >> > knowledge between the projects. >> > >> > -Robert Middleton >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:44 AM Volkan Yazıcı >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > GitHub can be configured to send email notifications. We can route >> these >> > > to, say, `notificati...@logging.apache.org` email address to have our >> > local >> > > records. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:01 PM Gary Gregory >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I thought this was recently discussed on @members, but now I can't >> > find the >> > > > thread! I'm not even sure if it was on @members, which exemplifies >> the >> > > > scaling problem discussed on the list, among other issues: When you >> > look at >> > > > PonyMail's UI, there are about 60 internal mailing lists under the ' >> > > > apache.org' project! How am I supposed to find anything? Searching >> my >> > > > Gmail >> > > > inbox didn't help, but I did not look for more than 30 seconds. >> Having >> > to >> > > > search yet another place... >> > > > >> > > > This thread I can't find pointed to examples of Reddit like UIs from >> > FOSS >> > > > providers. >> > > > >> > > > I agree that GH rocks. >> > > > >> > > > One topic that remains and is a must, is that wherever the data >> lives, >> > it >> > > > must end up recorded on Apache-owned resources, which GH is not. >> > > > >> > > > Gary >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Apache >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I cannot express an opinion without knowing what the replacement is >> > and >> > > > > having experience with it. Mailing lists have one great feature - >> > they >> > > > are >> > > > > easy to search. For that reason anything we choose should be just >> as >> > easy >> > > > > or better. We must also stick to a single medium for formal >> > communication >> > > > > for the same reason. >> > > > > >> > > > > We do have the ability to experiment with whatever we want but >> votes >> > need >> > > > > to continue here until we have ASF approval. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ralph >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Oct 10, 2024, at 3:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier < >> > grobme...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the >> > easiest >> > > > > parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, >> > as it >> > > > > may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). >> > When a >> > > > > user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very >> > overwhelming >> > > > and >> > > > > stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about >> this >> > > > move >> > > > > for the arguments you have given >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Kind regards >> > > > > > Christian >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >> > > > > >> *Abst
Re: Adding to Logging KEYS file
Hi Stephen, On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 at 08:36, Stephen Webb wrote: > > That would be much simpler. I was not aware that option was available. Is > there an example I can copy? I added a prototype as PR #414[1]: * I added a `package.sh` script that can be used to generate the source archives in a reproducible way. I didn't have the patience to make the script work on the MacOS runner, so it would be nice if somebody fixes the `tar` invocation to work also with the version on MacOS. The Windows runner does not have `zip` in the path accessible to `bash`, so that could be fixed too. * I modified the `package_code.yml` workflow so it 1. Builds the source archives and hashes. 2. Verify reproducibility (macos-latest and windows-latest are disabled) 3. If the workflow is triggered manually: sign everything and upload to SVN. The result is here[2]. You can verify that the `dev` Subversion repository has all the distribution files for `1.3.0` + e-mails. Piotr [1] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/414 [2] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/actions/runs/11296779341
Re: Successor to mailing lists
I'm not crazy about having to bounce around sections of various repos in addition to monitoring emails, which has to be done anyway. It's _another_ thing to lose track of :-( Having a repo just to use the discussion feature feels like a hack. I wish I could find the thread about new reddit-like FOSS UIs on one of the @apache.org lists... I feel like we should piggy back this discussion on that. Gary On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:02 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > That is something we can decide together: > >1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users will >use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so > on) >2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create >`logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, `Log4Net`, > etc. >sections there) >3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, >`logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., `logging-discuss` >with only `General` section) > > My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, > are we willing to take that step? > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:36 PM Robert Middleton > wrote: > > > The one problem I see with Github is that as far as I am aware > > discussions are on a per-repository basis, so unless we have a bare > > repository with everybody subscribed to it there's no way that I'm > > aware of to share information. For example while most of this mailing > > list is log4j specific, we also have log4cxx and log4net discussions > > happening on here and we can to some extent share resources or > > knowledge between the projects. > > > > -Robert Middleton > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:44 AM Volkan Yazıcı > > wrote: > > > > > > GitHub can be configured to send email notifications. We can route > these > > > to, say, `notificati...@logging.apache.org` email address to have our > > local > > > records. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:01 PM Gary Gregory > > wrote: > > > > > > > I thought this was recently discussed on @members, but now I can't > > find the > > > > thread! I'm not even sure if it was on @members, which exemplifies > the > > > > scaling problem discussed on the list, among other issues: When you > > look at > > > > PonyMail's UI, there are about 60 internal mailing lists under the ' > > > > apache.org' project! How am I supposed to find anything? Searching > my > > > > Gmail > > > > inbox didn't help, but I did not look for more than 30 seconds. > Having > > to > > > > search yet another place... > > > > > > > > This thread I can't find pointed to examples of Reddit like UIs from > > FOSS > > > > providers. > > > > > > > > I agree that GH rocks. > > > > > > > > One topic that remains and is a must, is that wherever the data > lives, > > it > > > > must end up recorded on Apache-owned resources, which GH is not. > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Apache > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I cannot express an opinion without knowing what the replacement is > > and > > > > > having experience with it. Mailing lists have one great feature - > > they > > > > are > > > > > easy to search. For that reason anything we choose should be just > as > > easy > > > > > or better. We must also stick to a single medium for formal > > communication > > > > > for the same reason. > > > > > > > > > > We do have the ability to experiment with whatever we want but > votes > > need > > > > > to continue here until we have ASF approval. > > > > > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2024, at 3:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier < > > grobme...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with the > > easiest > > > > > parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the scenes, > > as it > > > > > may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror it). > > When a > > > > > user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for Discourse, many use that now, but I find it very > > overwhelming > > > > and > > > > > stressful. I prefer the clean Github discussions approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't checked against ASF policies but feel positive about > this > > > > move > > > > > for the arguments you have given > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024, at 10:58, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > > > > >> *Abstract:* Modern email system security measures make it > > practically > > > > > >> impossible for mailing lists to work – many subscribers don't > get > > all > > > > > >> emails. This not only hinders communication, but blocks an > > inclusive > > > > > >> one. *Shall > > > > > >> we, as Logging Services, experiment with alternatives?* > > > > > >> > > > > > >> *Motivation #1: mailing
Re: Successor to mailing lists
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 2:08 PM Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024, at 19:35, Gary Gregory wrote: > > I'm not crazy about having to bounce around sections of various repos in > > addition to monitoring emails, which has to be done anyway. It's > _another_ > > thing to lose track of :-( Having a repo just to use the discussion > feature > > feels like a hack. > > > > I wish I could find the thread about new reddit-like FOSS UIs on one of > > the @apache.org lists... I feel like we should piggy back this > discussion > > on that. > > Wasn’t that on members? > I think the idea was to patch up ponymail to be more like Reddit and have > some kind of email subscriptions to topics. > Also nice, but I guess a lot of work > There was a separate email listing at least 2 FOSS web UIs we could use. Gary > > > > > > Gary > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:02 AM Volkan Yazıcı > > wrote: > > > >> That is something we can decide together: > >> > >>1. Have project-specific discussion repositories (i.e., Log4j users > will > >>use `logging-log4j2`, LogNet users will use `logging-log4net`, and so > >> on) > >>2. Have a shared discussion repository (e.g., we can create > >>`logging-discuss` repository and create `General`, `Log4j`, > `Log4Net`, > >> etc. > >>sections there) > >>3. Have project-specific discussion repositories (`logging-log4j2`, > >>`logging-log4net`, etc.) and also a shared one (i.e., > `logging-discuss` > >>with only `General` section) > >> > >> My point is, we can configure GitHub Discussions to suit our needs. But, > >> are we willing to take that step? > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:36 PM Robert Middleton < > rmiddle...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The one problem I see with Github is that as far as I am aware > >> > discussions are on a per-repository basis, so unless we have a bare > >> > repository with everybody subscribed to it there's no way that I'm > >> > aware of to share information. For example while most of this mailing > >> > list is log4j specific, we also have log4cxx and log4net discussions > >> > happening on here and we can to some extent share resources or > >> > knowledge between the projects. > >> > > >> > -Robert Middleton > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:44 AM Volkan Yazıcı > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > GitHub can be configured to send email notifications. We can route > >> these > >> > > to, say, `notificati...@logging.apache.org` email address to have > our > >> > local > >> > > records. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 2:01 PM Gary Gregory < > garydgreg...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I thought this was recently discussed on @members, but now I can't > >> > find the > >> > > > thread! I'm not even sure if it was on @members, which exemplifies > >> the > >> > > > scaling problem discussed on the list, among other issues: When > you > >> > look at > >> > > > PonyMail's UI, there are about 60 internal mailing lists under > the ' > >> > > > apache.org' project! How am I supposed to find anything? > Searching > >> my > >> > > > Gmail > >> > > > inbox didn't help, but I did not look for more than 30 seconds. > >> Having > >> > to > >> > > > search yet another place... > >> > > > > >> > > > This thread I can't find pointed to examples of Reddit like UIs > from > >> > FOSS > >> > > > providers. > >> > > > > >> > > > I agree that GH rocks. > >> > > > > >> > > > One topic that remains and is a must, is that wherever the data > >> lives, > >> > it > >> > > > must end up recorded on Apache-owned resources, which GH is not. > >> > > > > >> > > > Gary > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Apache < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I cannot express an opinion without knowing what the > replacement is > >> > and > >> > > > > having experience with it. Mailing lists have one great feature > - > >> > they > >> > > > are > >> > > > > easy to search. For that reason anything we choose should be > just > >> as > >> > easy > >> > > > > or better. We must also stick to a single medium for formal > >> > communication > >> > > > > for the same reason. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > We do have the ability to experiment with whatever we want but > >> votes > >> > need > >> > > > > to continue here until we have ASF approval. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Ralph > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Oct 10, 2024, at 3:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier < > >> > grobme...@apache.org > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I am generally open to such experiments. I would start with > the > >> > easiest > >> > > > > parts, such as users@, and see where it goes. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I would advise against mirroring it to users@ behind the > scenes, > >> > as it > >> > > > > may cause privacy problems (we need user consensus to mirror > it). > >> > When a > >> > > > > user uses GitHub, they know what to expect. > >>
