Adding my +1.
With that, the release passes with 4 binding +1 votes from Piotr,
Ralph, Matt, and me. I will continue the release process.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:52 PM Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I’ll note that the reproducibility check fails on log4j-bom this time, but
> not a blocker.
>
+1
I’ll note that the reproducibility check fails on log4j-bom this time, but not
a blocker.
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1 RC2.
>
> Website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4j/3.x
> GitHub: https://github.co
+1 from me. Everything seems ok.
Ralph
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 2:00 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1 RC2.
>
> Website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4j/3.x
> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2
> Commit: 416cd4dcf419b59c88054
Hi Volkan,
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 22:00, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1 RC2.
>
> Website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4j/3.x
> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2
> Commit: 416cd4dcf419b59c88054d2001d34c7fec010560
> Distributi
In these universes (projects): Over the years, many RCs in many projects
have created zip and tars with missing files because assembly descriptors
for the Maven assembly plugin where not updated correctly or created
properly in the first place. The src zip and tar is NOT (usually) a dump of
EVERYTH
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:05 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Do note that building from sources, not git, is an Apache requirement.
Okay, but in what universe is building from a Git tag on the sources
(which is, what the release:perform goal does) different from
"building from sources"?
Jochen
Hi
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, at 21:14, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hi Ralph
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, at 16:20, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> The vote has been open for 6 days because we were under the impression
>> the vote was going be cancelled based on Piotr’s feedback. I can commit
>> to having the re
Hi Ralph
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, at 16:20, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The vote has been open for 6 days because we were under the impression
> the vote was going be cancelled based on Piotr’s feedback. I can commit
> to having the review done in 72 hrs if the release is cut today or
> tomorrow. This sl
Christian,
The vote has been open for 6 days because we were under the impression the vote
was going be cancelled based on Piotr’s feedback. I can commit to having the
review done in 72 hrs if the release is cut today or tomorrow. This slow down
for me at work this time of the year so between n
Hi Gary,
On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 14:05, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Do note that building from sources, not git, is an Apache requirement. IIRC
> reproducibility is a nice-to-have for Apache, but are we making this a
> Logging or Log4J requirement?
Reproducibility is a requirement from the Apache Secur
Hi Volkan
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023, at 13:43, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> I am cancelling this vote. I may try to issue an RC2 this week if time
> allows. If you think that is inconvenient due to upcoming xmas, and/or you
> want to issue the RC2 yourself, please let me know.
please don't cut an RC2 this w
Hi all,
Do note that building from sources, not git, is an Apache requirement. IIRC
reproducibility is a nice-to-have for Apache, but are we making this a
Logging or Log4J requirement? So a review should not be based on a git tag
IMO, it should be based on downloading the src zip or tar and buildi
I am cancelling this vote. I may try to issue an RC2 this week if time
allows. If you think that is inconvenient due to upcoming xmas, and/or you
want to issue the RC2 yourself, please let me know.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 4:26 PM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 21:39, Gary Gregory wrote:
> If you write "Please don't release this.", then you should vote -1. Or am I
> missing something?
You are right. I am voting -1, because of the `*-test-sources.jar`
artifacts in the Maven repository.
Reproducibility is not an issue, we
+1
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 2:45 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> We can review this without doing a reproducibility check. The signatures of
> everything look good; just doing some final validations before voting.
>
>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> Since Piotr asked for a fi
We can review this without doing a reproducibility check. The signatures of
everything look good; just doing some final validations before voting.
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Since Piotr asked for a fix and Matt can reproduce the issue, I'm not going
> to take the tim
Since Piotr asked for a fix and Matt can reproduce the issue, I'm not going
to take the time.to review this RC.
Gary
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023, 3:21 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> Even though the vote was intended for 72 hours, it has been 5 days and
> there hasn't been any official votes on the release.
Even though the vote was intended for 72 hours, it has been 5 days and
there hasn't been any official votes on the release. I will wait for
another 24 hours and cancel the release. I will appreciate PMC members'
participation in the voting.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 4:26 PM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 3:08 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> Given we will have several other betas before a GA release, do these issues
> really constitute a serious blocker? Or they can be addressed in the next
> beta?
>
I can’t run the release verification commands you provided without this fix
Hi Volkan,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 22:09, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> Given we will have several other betas before a GA release, do these issues
> really constitute a serious blocker? Or they can be addressed in the next
> beta?
These artifacts will pollute Maven Central and overly complicate the
v
Hi Gary,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 21:39, Gary Gregory wrote:
> If you write "Please don't release this.", then you should vote -1. Or am I
> missing something?
I don't think that will be necessary. I am reserving my vote for later. ;-)
Piotr
Given we will have several other betas before a GA release, do these issues
really constitute a serious blocker? Or they can be addressed in the next
beta?
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 21:32, Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
> Hi Volkan,
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 16:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> >
> > This is a
Hi Piotr,
If you write "Please don't release this.", then you should vote -1. Or am I
missing something?
Gary
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 3:33 PM Piotr P. Karwasz
wrote:
> Hi Volkan,
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 16:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> >
> > This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta
Hi Volkan,
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 16:26, Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release the Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1.
>
> Website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/log4j
> GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2
> Commit: c5dbdcfeb0216e1e3e333436e9b4d04cc3b8e6fd
> Distribution: http
24 matches
Mail list logo
