Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

[log4j] Revamping Log4j website & manual structure

*TLDR:* Log4j website & manual structure (i.e., sectioning) will be changed. Please reply for feedback and/or support. As a part of the planned Log4j website & manual revamp , I ask for your feedback on the structure Christian, Piot

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

Re: [log4j] Revamping Log4j website & manual structure

Hi all, Thank you V for putting this together. >From a high level, I don't like that the proposal is split into a website and a manual. The material should be the same and obviously optionally differently as a site vs a manual. For example, why is the tutorial excluded from the manual? Anyway, th

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

Re: [log4j] Revamping Log4j website & manual structure

*[We can indeed discuss this further in the video call.]* If I am not mistaken, you were a big fan of PostgreSQL's website – correct me if I am wrong. The current structure is pretty much analogous to what they have: a set of common pages (about, support, tutorials, etc.) and major-version-specifi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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

[VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1 (RC2)

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 Distribution: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4j Nexus: https://repos

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j 3.0.0-beta1

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