Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Hi all, Inspired by the way the Log4Net team works, I would like to propose a switch from our CTR policy to RTC: * every change to the main branches should go through a pull request, * pull requests can be merged if they have 1 positive review and no requested changes. To allow everyone to look a

Re: Can't build log4j main branch

Hi Volkan, On Mon, 16 Sept 2024 at 20:19, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Gary has a failure on L361, that is, it retries every 100ms to succeed with > `logger.info()` for at most 2mins. I doubt if more waiting will solve the > problem. I tried to improve that test several times (see its history), but > W

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Why? i.e. - what currently isn’t working? Ralph > On Sep 17, 2024, at 1:30 AM, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi all, > > Inspired by the way the Log4Net team works, I would like to propose a > switch from our CTR policy to RTC: > > * every change to the main branches should go through a pull re

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Hi Ralph, On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 15:47, Ralph Goers wrote: > > Why? i.e. - what currently isn’t working? I merely wish to formalize what is already happening and set up a branch protection rule to enforce it. Note that I have never seen a PR in Log4Net being merged without a review. On the ot

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Maybe we should talk about net vs. J separately? Gary On Tue, Sep 17, 2024, 10:53 AM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > Hi Ralph, > > On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 15:47, Ralph Goers > wrote: > > > > Why? i.e. - what currently isn’t working? > > I merely wish to formalize what is already happening and set up

[VOTE][LAZY] Release Apache Logging Parent `11.3.0` (RC1)

This is a lazy-vote to release the Apache Logging Parent `11.3.0`. Website: https://logging.staged.apache.org/logging-parent-11.3.0 GitHub: https://github.com/apache/logging-parent Commit: 47c5a7a1073ac75ebb8aee58277a6b574862a990 Distribution: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/loggin

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

First, the obvious. I haven’t committed much in a while. The last several I did I used PRs primarily because it makes it easier for people to review the changes but I didn’t necessarily wait for a review. For really simple stuff I've never use a PR. However, with the switch from Jira to GitHub

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

I’m -1 on switching to RTC. Same reason as always. Losing momentum from waiting for an unnecessary code review will simply lead to much longer gaps between time I spend on the project. > On Sep 17, 2024, at 03:30, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > > Hi all, > > Inspired by the way the Log4Net team wo

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Hello, After working on Log4j with PRs, I have changed my opinion on CTR/RTC in this case. Previously, I would have said keep CTR. However, I worked with RTC using PRs, and my experiences were not bad. I was a bit lost with the comments on the PR, but I figured it out somehow. I think GitHub is

[log4j] Google OSS-Fuzz integration

OSS-Fuzz is a Google service that continuously runs fuzz tests of critical F/OSS projects on a beefy cluster and reports its findings (bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.) privately to project maintainers. In #2949 , I

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Hi Matt, On Tue, 17 Sept 2024 at 20:06, Matt Sicker wrote: > > I’m -1 on switching to RTC. Same reason as always. Losing momentum from > waiting for an unnecessary code review will simply lead to much longer gaps > between time I spend on the project. Honestly, momentum is not always a good th

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

Hi we have only had good experiences with RTC in log4net. Of course, a lot depends on a review being done in a timely manner. The feedback is always valuable and I can apply the changes before merging to main. But most of the time, a pending review does not stop me from continuing my work. Either

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

I'm with Matt. It should be left at the discretion of the developer whether a PR or straight commit is justified. I see no reason to throw sand in the gears. Gary On Tue, Sep 17, 2024, 2:05 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > I’m -1 on switching to RTC. Same reason as always. Losing momentum from > waiting

Re: Use RTC in Log4j and Log4Net

This isn’t a vote so I am not going to. If I had to vote I wouldn’t vote for a policy that requires RTC always. However, I would vote for a policy that requires RTC when specified criteria are met. Ralph > On Sep 17, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > > First, the obvious. I haven’t comm