Re: [logging-log4j2] branch release-2.x updated: Enable GitHub issues and projects

I eventually figured it out: I was putting the flags in the wrong section. > On Jan 12, 2023, at 11:00 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Projects got enabled, but Issues are still pending. Maybe this will sync up > in the next several hours. > — > Matt Sicker > >> On Jan 12, 2023, at 22:56, mattsic..

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j Tools 0.1.0

Adding my +1. With that, the release passes with 4 binding +1 votes from me, Piotr, Matt, and Remko. On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:55 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 >

Re: Requiring signed commits

Hi Volkan, On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 10:56, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > *Question:* Shall we require signed commits? I am obviously Ok with signing, but what should we do with unsigned PRs? I would prefer to document the requirement somewhere (in the PR template?) so that we don't have to `rebase -f` ev

Re: Requiring signed commits

Sounds reasonable to sign commits if you think it could catch problems sooner, I onky sign tags usually. Gary On Fri, Jan 13, 2023, 04:56 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > [I am resurrecting this post from March 2022 > .] > > I am in favor

Requiring signed commits

[I am resurrecting this post from March 2022 .] I am in favor of enabling *the "requires signature"* setting. I see Carter, Matt, Piotr, and myself always signing the commits. Ralph and Gary need to join the band too. it is pretty s