Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

On 2018-06-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, 09:12 Stefan Bodewig, wrote: >> Do you know how to create the oldkeys binaries? Or will we just no >> longer provide them (I could live with that). > I have no idea, yet. :-) people had a long time to adapt to new

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

On 2018-06-17, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Am Fr., 15. Juni 2018 um 10:53 Uhr schrieb Stefan Bodewig < > bode...@apache.org>: >> On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: >>> That is possible. I restricted access to the github token to the log4net >>> build job

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > That is possible. I restricted access to the github token to the log4net > build job only. Stefan, would you like to try whether you can gain access > to that token? I can guide you to where you can find it off-list. Sorry, still travelling. Even if I don't

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

On 2018-06-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > As far as I can tell, the secrets stored in jenkins.a.o are > trustworthy. For instance I used a github access token generated from > my github account that grants jenkins access to the log4net-logging > repository on github. I am convinced that nobody else

Re: [log4net] crafting the next release

[Sorry for the top post] I think Matt and you are talking about different "signing" processes. .NET assemblies can be signed (strong named) and for some releases now we've used a key that is checked into git for one distribution archive (no credential needed, everything is in git) that is labeled

Re: [log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

On 2018-01-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Sometimes it is possible to configure the test runner so that it runs in > process instead of spawning a new process. Would you like to investigate on > this? I don't see any such option. We could re-enable more detailed logging and try to figure out which

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 21 Jan 2018 11:28 a.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> Maybe, yes. See the other thread for my investigation so far. The >> github issue I've linked and the source code for the Unix >> implementation of FileStream s

Re: svn commit: r1821805 - /logging/site/cms/trunk/content/security.twig

On 2018-01-22, Matt Sicker wrote: > Thanks for taking care of this! We have a CVE in Log4j 2 we can link to on > this page as well. My idea rather was to mimic what the Commons project is doing. In this case you'd add a security page to the log4j website, something along the lines of https://com

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I have looked at the assert that fails. For one there's a comment on it > saying that "on linux locking seems to not behave as one would expect". > Second the assert is wrapped in an #if !MONO || MONO_3_5 || MONO_4_0. Note > that this all comes from my memor

Re: [log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

On 2018-01-20, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > I have disabled the test conditionallly on Linux and the Jenkins build > now finishes the tests on Linux. But not reliably, there seems to be another test that crashes the test runner from time to time. https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/c

Re: [log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

On 2018-01-20, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > it looks as if exclusive locking didn't work properly for > RollingfileAppender on Linux for our NET Core tests. This has also > been true for the MONO_2_0 builds ages ago. I haven't checked whether > we are hitting a known lim

[log4net] exclusive lock on .NET Core 1.x and Linux

Hi all it looks as if exclusive locking didn't work properly for RollingfileAppender on Linux for our NET Core tests. This has also been true for the MONO_2_0 builds ages ago. I haven't checked whether we are hitting a known limitation so far. I have disabled the test conditionallly on Linux and

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 20 Jan 2018 7:27 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> Building .NET 2.0 (not standard or core, good old .NET framework) was >> broken. > I see. I wonder why the build worked on ci. because there is no build step for compile-

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-20, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 20 Jan 2018 6:47 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> On 2018-01-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > >>> 2018-01-15 10:22 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig : >>>> There still are lots of version conflicts that we probably want

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-15, Dominik Psenner wrote: > 2018-01-15 10:22 GMT+01:00 Stefan Bodewig : >> Hi >> by now I've dusted off the old VM that I used to build 2.0.8 (at leat >> the Windows part of it), installed .NET Core SDK 1.1.7 in order to be >> able to deal with the cs

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

Hi by now I've dusted off the old VM that I used to build 2.0.8 (at leat the Windows part of it), installed .NET Core SDK 1.1.7 in order to be able to deal with the csproj files (2.0.8 has been using json projects with .NET Core 1.0 preview3). After some tweaks I am able to build a distribution i

Re: [log4net] release 2.0.9

On 2018-01-12, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I'm working on LOG4NET-566, hoping that we can get a release build > from our CI. CI won't be able to create the oldkey binaries unless we are willing to make the old key public (which defeats the reason why the new key was introduced in the first place. >

Re: lognet license file

On 2017-11-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I just noticed that the log4net license file reads as > [...] > Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] > [...] > Should we fix that? No, this is correct. This is part of the appendix that explains how to apply the Apache Software License to your own p

Re: Moving log4net-logviewer to apache

On 2017-09-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > What does the community think should happen? Are there people out there who > use log4net-logviewer or any of its binaries? I don't. https://github.com/wallymathieu/log4net-logviewer/issues/7#issuecomment-327423060 and the following comment sounds as if "m

Re: [log4net] ci pipeline status update

On 2017-07-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > oohh how I like to be the bringer of good news! Right now I was finally > able to fix the building of the netstandard target by providing a > jenkinsfile script that detects the UID and GID of the working path and > passing that in as parameters into the bui

Re: [log4net] ci pipeline status update

On 2017-07-10, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I just stumbled upon this which may allows us to detect the expected uid > that a docker container is run in when the docker container is built. We > can use that information to prepare the docker container user so that its > uid and gid match the one we nee

Re: [log4net] ci pipeline status update

On 2017-07-09, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I finally managed to build the netstandard assemblies in our jenkins > pipeline. It was a tough task and the solution feels like a hack, but it > works. See: > https://builds.apache.org/job/logging-log4net/job/develop/ > The problem was that dotnet always

Re: [log4net] set up basic multibranch and pull requests build

On 2017-07-02, Dominik Psenner wrote: > After a little investigation I found out that are going to have trouble > with building mono assemblies that target mono1.0, mono-2.0, mono-4.0 with > a recent installation of mono-4.5: > http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#dropped-s

Re: [log4net] set up basic multibranch and pull requests build

Hi Dominik I hope you'll be getting better soon, even though it would probably mean you'll have to slow down. On 2017-07-01, Dominik Psenner wrote: > An idea crossed my mind. Couldn't we build the Mono binaries on the ubuntu > machines? .net core should build both on ubuntu and on windows. nant

Re: [log4net] pull request #11

On 2017-06-30, Dominik Psenner wrote: > While working on the Jenkinsfile so that jjenkins builds all kinds of > branches for us I noticed that pr-11 made it into master without us carving > out a release. It's been my fault. I committed it to master out of habit and merged it to develop later whe

Re: logging-log4net git commit: (doc) Fix name of class LogicalThreadContext

Argh, I pushed this to the wrong branch (master instead of develop) by habit. Sorry Stefan

[GitHub] logging-log4net issue #11: (doc) Fix name of class LogicalThreadContext

Github user bodewig commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/pull/11 merged, many thanks! --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and

Re: [log4net] jenkins

Hi Dominik you should be set now, I've used my Gump PMC chairman powers and added you to the LDAP group for Jenkins admins. Stefan On 2017-06-22, Dominik Psenner wrote: > *bump* > I would still like to update the build configuration on builds.apache.org > so that log4net is built with pipeline

Re: [LOG4NET] [VOTE] gitflow

On 2017-06-12, Matt Sicker wrote: > That's an interesting use case. Are you using gitpubsub instead of > svnpubsub for the site then? "mvn site" plus manual copy over to svn plus the logging site's svnpubsub. Yes, it is painful :-) Stefan

Re: LOGCXX Jira Mail Setting

elect a different notification > scheme, or modify the currently selected scheme. > * Email:j...@apache.org <mailto:j...@apache.org> > {quote} > Cheers, > Dominik > On 2017-06-09 11:26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Hi >> I just had to moderate through the JIRA mail for

LOGCXX Jira Mail Setting

Hi I just had to moderate through the JIRA mail for LOGCXX-488. It looks as if we needed to fix the address messages for this JIRA project get sent to, but I lack the admin karma to do that myself. Stefan

Re: [log4net] Remove log4net github repo?

On 2017-05-25, Dominik Psenner wrote: > While applying the pull requests I stumbled upon pr/22 which is based on > the branch log4net-1.2.x. That branch has a lot of modifications but I am > unsure whether or not those changes have been merged into trunk or if there > has been a release made from

Re: [log4net] Remove log4net github repo?

I've asked infra to remove the repo: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-14233 On 2017-05-25, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I have cloned the repository from [1] and fetched also all open pull > requests. Unfortunately it is not possible to apply or fetch the pull > requests into the new git r

[log4net] Remove log4net github repo?

Hi it's been more than three weeks since I commented on all PRs at the old mirror. I think it is safe to ask infra to remove the mirror of the svn tree by now. Any objections? Stefan

Re: [log4net] rel/tags

gs that have a ref/ tag? And further, > do we want to move the rc tags to rc/x.y.z.f-RCx? Re: non-rel Tags, what I said below. I don't care much. rc/* is a nice idea for future tags. Stefan > On 24 May 2017 3:19 p.m., "Stefan Bodewig" wrote: >> On 2017-05-23, Domini

Re: [log4net] rel/tags

On 2017-05-23, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I just noticed that we have several rel/tags in our repository. Thanks > Stefan for crafting those pgp signed immutable tags. rel/* is protected in our git repos, so we are encouraged to use them for release tags. > Do we want to avoid duplication and remo

Re: [LOG4NET] [VOTE] gitflow

On 2017-05-22, Dominik Psenner wrote: > This is a vote to introduce gitflow on the log4net subproject. gitflow > would mean that we make use of the following named branches: > * master > Marks stable milestones and is moves on with a release. > * develop > Development of the next milesto

Re: [1/2] logging-log4net git commit: This migrates the visual studio solution to Visual Studio 14

2017-05-22, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I'm a vi guy and have no need for a decent window manager. ;-) > Can I proceed with bumping the solution to visual studio 2015 and removing > all solution files on the master branch? > 2017-05-22 18:19 GMT+02:00 Stefan Bodewig : >> On

Re: [1/2] logging-log4net git commit: This migrates the visual studio solution to Visual Studio 14

On 2017-05-22, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 2017-05-22 13:59, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> As long as we keep NAnt as the build tool of truth the solution files >> are "only" a convenience feature for people using VS (likely everybody >> except myself :-). > How

Re: [LOG4NET] gitflow

On 2017-05-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > To me the gitflow concept boils down to a way of tydying up the > historical mess that piles up over the years. The branch > feature/RollingFileAppender-NG dates actually back to 2012. I'd be > happy already if we had a naming convention for the different br

Re: [1/2] logging-log4net git commit: This migrates the visual studio solution to Visual Studio 14

ine with a single sln and laze votes, yes. Stefan On 2017-05-21, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I hoped to hear that. keeping 4 sln in sync is a major effort with no > profit. Do we want lazy votes when an upgrade to a new vs version is > immanent? > On 21 May 2017 6:02 a.m., "St

Re: [LOG4NET] gitflow

On 2017-05-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: > would we like to use gitflow for our named branches? [1] I've used gitflow in one or two projects at work and we've never really come to a situation where having the release branch really helped. Maybe because we didn't create bug fix releases on a regular

Re: [1/2] logging-log4net git commit: This migrates the visual studio solution to Visual Studio 14

On 2017-05-19, wrote: > This migrates the visual studio solution to Visual Studio 14 > -- > src/log4net.vs2012.csproj | 4 ++-- > src/log4net.vs2012.sln| 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > -

Re: The Apache Software Foundation Welcomes 64 New Members

On 2017-05-04, Mikael Ståldal wrote: > Congratulations Matt! Yes, congrats to Matt and Dominik. Stefan

Re: [log4net] git repository is online

On 2017-04-28, Matt Sicker wrote: > Speaking of which, we use the Jenkinsfile style pipelines at my work, and > those are a bit less annoying to use than the web interface. Any idea if we > can use those here? builds.apache.org has a "Open Blue Ocean" button at the top, at least once you authenti

Re: [log4net] git repository is online

On 2017-04-28, Dominik Psenner wrote: > Stefan has mastered all levels that exist for making jenkins > configurations. :-) TBH, I haven't tried that so far and am not sure the necessary Jenkins plugins have been installed. This would be pretty low on my personal priority list, so if you get there

Re: [log4net] git repository is online

Hi I've also re-configured Jenkins to use git, we'll see how that works out. Stefan

Re: [log4net] git repository is online

On 2017-04-28, Dominik Psenner wrote: > On 2017-04-28 06:43, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> Before svn goes read-only we may want to remove the contents of trunk >> and add a single README saying that we moved to git with pointers to the >> Apache repo as well as the new github

Re: [log4net] git repository is online

On 2017-04-27, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the new git repository for the log4net > subproject is up! It can be found here: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/logging-log4net.git Great! > 1) Note that the repository at https://github.com/apache/log4net is not a

Re: [log4net] svn.a.o/r/a/logging/log4net/site

On 2017-04-27, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I just noticed that log4net has a html version of the website > committed at svn as a sibling of trunk at [1]. Stefan, you did some > commits there back in 2012. I assume that the content is obsolete and > we don't mind if that content is not available on th

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15982623#comment-15982623 ] Stefan Bodewig commented on LOG4NET-563: There probably isn't any real

[jira] [Resolved] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Stefan Bodewig resolved LOG4NET-563. Resolution: Fixed I've published the changed pages. > Site: make the site look

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15981061#comment-15981061 ] Stefan Bodewig commented on LOG4NET-563: I've reduced the projec

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15979852#comment-15979852 ] Stefan Bodewig commented on LOG4NET-563: Sure, take your time. I hav

Re: Java 9 modules

On 2017-04-21, Ralph Goers wrote: > I have not started work on this yet, but from looking at > http://blog.joda.org/2017/04/java-9-modules-jpms-basics.html > it > seems we are going to have problems with a) plugins that are in > differ

[jira] [Commented] (LOG4NET-563) Site: make the site look like the site of other logging subprojects

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4NET-563?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15979252#comment-15979252 ] Stefan Bodewig commented on LOG4NET-563: Current trunk creates this site: h

Re: Log4net website issue

On 2017-04-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: > I completely purged that mess from my memory. We need a solution that > just works and links to generated code are not "the solution"©. :-) > When I build log4net I get the following files: > * log4net.dll > * log4net.pdb > * log4net.xml > The latter is a

Re: Log4net website issue

Hallo Thorsten On 2017-04-19, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > am Mittwoch, 19. April 2017 um 10:13 schrieben Sie: >> As log4net uses maven to build the site as well, this could probably >> solved by using the same skin (I've never tried to fiddle with that, >> though). > As log4cxx has done the same

Re: Log4net website issue

On 2017-04-19, Dominik Psenner wrote: > From a higher perspective I would also like to see all logging > subprojects to have one website style. Looking at the website of > log4net and log4j those projects appear to be unrelated, whereas the > log4cxx and log4j websites are more alike. Any ideas ho

Re: Log4net website issue

On 2017-04-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > We probably should at least add a remark that points readers to the > SDK reference and avoid the double effort of maintaining the > documentation on the website too. Likely, in particular since we've broken it twice during the 2.0.x release series. Looks a

Re: Log4net website issue

Hi John On 2017-04-18, John V wrote: > Please forward this if you are not the appropriate recipient. Many thanks! > I was browsing the documentation on the Log4Net website for a list of > all of the formatting flags for the PatternLayout, but could not find > one. I did discover some dead link

Re: [log4net] [VOTE] migrate log4net from svn to git

On 2017-04-18, Dominik Psenner wrote: > This is a vote to migrate the source code of the log4net subproject > from subversion over to git. +1 Stefan

Re: [log4net] [Discuss] migration to git

On 2017-04-13, Dominik Psenner wrote: > As of today log4net is about one of the last logging subprojects that > still uses svn and it makes sense to me that we migrate also this > subproject over to git. What do you think? +1 Stefan

Re: [General] Logging website updates

On 2017-04-12, Robert Middleton wrote: > With the new list, the logging website that contains the main logging > homepage should probably be updated to point at this list instead of > referring to the individual project mailing lists: > http://logging.apache.org/mailing-lists.html True. I've alre