You should feel free to change the build system in any way that makes it easier for people to perform a release. Ideally, it would be nice if it was something that could be automated from Jenkins, but that is not a requirement.
Ralph > On Apr 7, 2020, at 8:42 AM, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, so would it be acceptable to change the build system altogether? Should I > create a PR using the build system (npm / node-based) that I use for my > projects? I'm happy to do so. > > -d > On 2020-04-07 17:39:31, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > We mostly develop on the JVM which has a fairly different build > system. Performing a release for the .net code seems to involve > multiple build tools, and our old CI setup for log4net is broken due > to nant no longer being included in our Jenkins nodes. Basically, the > only realistic release we can validate is a signed and checksummed > source archive. We need some .net developers to help create the binary > artifacts and verify they're good to distribute. We can help with the > logistics of distributing a copy of your public GPG key for signing > the artifacts, and we can handle committing the release artifacts to > the release repository. We'd also likely invite anyone who does such a > release to join the PMC so that they'd have the proper authorization > to perform all the release steps on their own (other than the vote > itself which we would all take part in). > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 09:18, Davyd McColl wrote: >> >> I'm glad to help -- not sure where though: >> >> I'm sure I could build (haven't actually done it) log4net and the associated >> package, and I could push that to nuget from my own machine, assuming that I >> had the credentials to do so. Releasing my own packages is the least work I >> have to do when I make changes -- I've automated into an npm script in >> NExpect and the PeanutButter packages, where that script builds, tests, >> increments package version, packs, pushes, tags and pushes the commit >> containing updated .nuspecs and the tag to github. >> >> I'm assuming there's something vastly different here? Are packages pushed by >> a CI server (eg the mentioned Jenkins?). Or is the problem simply that >> no-one actually knows where the build, sign and push steps are performed? I >> assume that the .snk in this solution is the one used to sign the package >> (though I would not have expected to find the snk there, because it allows >> anyone to sign a package as official). >> >> Does anyone have any idea where to start looking? I see build is done with >> Nant (I'm not familiar, but I can probably figure it out) -- other than >> that, what do we know about the process? If someone knows (or guesses) that >> it's happening at Jenkins, is there a way for me to assist with debugging >> that process? >> >> -d >> On 2020-04-07 16:08:06, Apache wrote: >> What you are seeing is exactly what I have been saying. The major problem is >> that none of the existing logging services committers know how to perform a >> release. We know there have been fixes committed that are needed. We just >> don’t know how to make them available. That is exactly why I said your focus >> should be getting a release built. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 10:15 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> That sounds promising, and I'm aware that I'm probably being a little >>> annoying by now, but I've also noticed that the source package is version >>> is at 2.0.9 where the latest release package version is 2.0.8. That version >>> was bumped 3 years ago. In between the last release date and last commits >>> are commits including at least 2 PR merges (42 and 23 ), both of which seen >>> significant. >>> >>> I guess what I'm asking is what's holding up the 2.0.9 release? If I'm to >>> fork, PR and even if that PR is accepted, how do I avoid the fate of 2.0.9? >>> >>> Or is that something I can assist with right now? >>> >>> Please understand where I'm coming from: I'd really like to keep log4net >>> alive, but, like anyone, I have limited time resources, so I'd prefer to >>> spend that time on tasks with some reasonable probability of success. >>> >>> Thanks >>> -d >>> >>> >>>> On April 6, 2020 23:00:36 Ralph Goers wrote: >>>> >>>> No. What I am implying is that you would begin the work necessary to >>>> perform a release on a fork. When you are ready you would submit a PR and >>>> one or more of the existing PMC members would review that and merge it. >>>> You would then collaborate with us to get the release published. >>>> >>>> There is a big difference between us reviewing PRs and merging them for >>>> stuff we know little about vs us providing the karma you will need to >>>> formally get a release done. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>>> Unfortunately, this would suggest that forking and publishing under a >>>>> different package name is probably the best idea. There are, as noted >>>>> before, 34 stagnated pull requests currently at GitHub, many of which >>>>> haven't seen any attention since 2018. It would seem to be a fool's >>>>> errand to open a 35th I'm hopes that it would be the one to get attention. >>>>> If I'm wrong (and I'd love to be) please correct me. >>>>> -d >>>>> On April 6, 2020 15:59:26 Apache wrote: >>>>>> The only requirement to become an experienced open source developer is >>>>>> passion. Open source developers are just people who like to work on code >>>>>> that everyone can use. That’s it. If you have the time, can help with >>>>>> the technical problems needed to get the project moving, and can >>>>>> collaborate with others you have everything you need. >>>>>> Yes, the code base is still at Github and nothing has been done that >>>>>> can’t be undone. But for the PMC to move the project out of dormant >>>>>> status you would first need to demonstrate progress, which might mean >>>>>> collaborating on a private fork until you are ready to merge it. >>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2020, at 1:10 AM, Tim Sargent wrote: >>>>>>> I remember reading the call for .NET devs (a few years back) to help >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the .NET core version for Log4Net. That's about the time I joined the >>>>>>> mailing list. >>>>>>> As I understand it, dormant just means it's no longer being maintained, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> the current version is still available for download and use via NuGet. >>>>>>> I've toyed with the idea of getting involved in an open source project, >>>>>>> which is why I originally joined the list. Unfortunately, I don't think >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> have the background in open source projects to be an effective >>>>>>> contributor, >>>>>>> let alone sponsor. I'm very experienced in .NET (having been doing it >>>>>>> since it was in its final preview for 1.0), and I have experience with >>>>>>> unit >>>>>>> tests, automated builds and release pipelines (though it's all MS based >>>>>>> via >>>>>>> TFS and MSTest). >>>>>>> Having said that, it sounds like Mr McColl has a strong interest in >>>>>>> keeping >>>>>>> it alive, and I'd be happy to offer assistance in any way he finds >>>>>>> beneficial. >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:50 AM Apache wrote: >>>>>>>> No one is ever happy moving a project to dormant status. But it is >>>>>>>> unfair >>>>>>>> to users to let them think the project is being maintained when the >>>>>>>> reality >>>>>>>> is quite different than that. >>>>>>>> The main issue that needs to be overcome is getting a release out. The >>>>>>>> ASF >>>>>>>> has some requirements around releases that have to be met, but that >>>>>>>> isn’t >>>>>>>> the hard part. Most users want convenience binaries and no one who is >>>>>>>> active knows how to do that. There is a documented process in >>>>>>>> confluence >>>>>>>> but I have no idea how accurate it is. >>>>>>>> Once a release is able to be cut getting assistance from others would >>>>>>>> probably be easier. >>>>>>>> Also, the ASF infra team really doesn’t care about the status of the >>>>>>>> project and is not a driving force in this. >>>>>>>> To be honest, log4cxx was in a similar position. But that project has >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> a couple of people come forward and are working towards a release. We >>>>>>>> hope >>>>>>>> they succeed. >>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2020, at 11:56 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all >>>>>>>>> I'm new to this list, been using log4net for around 9 years, and only >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> week discovered that it is being made dormant (and what that means). >>>>>>>>> I've been told that the team has been looking for outside help for >>>>>>>> around 2 >>>>>>>>> years, with no-one forthcoming. Unfortunately, as I say, this is the >>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>> I've heard of it. I'd like to keep log4net alive because it's used >>>>>>>>> ubiquitously and I think it's a valuable project. >>>>>>>>> I publish my own nuget packages >>>>>>>>> (https://www.nuget.org/profiles/davydm) >>>>>>>>> though obviously, not with the same methodologies of the existing >>>>>>>>> log4net >>>>>>>>> infrastructure. I see that there's a 2.0.9 release that could >>>>>>>>> potentially >>>>>>>>> happen (as per the source), whilst 2.0.8 is still the current >>>>>>>>> release, so >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming there's something holding that up. I also see 34 pull >>>>>>>> requests >>>>>>>>> on GitHub which are in different states of activity, but many have >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> dormant since 2018. >>>>>>>>> I'd like to help, but I'm not sure where to start with the log4net >>>>>>>>> infra >>>>>>>> (I >>>>>>>>> hear there's Jira (I've had little experience) and Jenkins (I've had >>>>>>>>> reasonable experience, but not with pipelines)). I'm not even sure >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> state of play is for that infra. I'm sure there are good reasons for >>>>>>>> making >>>>>>>>> the project dormant -- some of those may include the desire to free up >>>>>>>>> infra which could be used elsewhere (or just not paid for). >>>>>>>>> As I say, I'd like to keep log4net alive. I see a few options here: >>>>>>>>> 1. I learn your infra and your processes. I integrate and try to keep >>>>>>>>> things pretty-much as they were (though I'm sure some things would >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> change -- all things do). I don't mind spending the time learning the >>>>>>>>> domain, if that's agreeable to everyone and the project retains it's >>>>>>>>> original branding and status. One thing I'm concerned about here is >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> dormant backlog >>>>>>>>> 2. As above, with a bit of a clean-slate philosophy: I'd like to >>>>>>>>> remove >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> backlog items that aren't critical and start with the least >>>>>>>>> outstanding >>>>>>>>> stuff possible. If a report is important, it will be reported again. >>>>>>>> Trying >>>>>>>>> to trace down the authors and origins of 2+year-old reports is going >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> frustrating. Issues which aren't attended to just become noise in the >>>>>>>>> backlog, imo. >>>>>>>>> 3. I fork and perform the "clean slate" approach of above, inviting >>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>> to use my variant and log issues there. Uptake will naturally be slow >>>>>>>>> (if >>>>>>>>> even noticeable), which will give me time to deal with incoming >>>>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>> the other hand, I'd have full control and no need to bother anyone >>>>>>>>> else. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> would have to come up with a new name and make it clear that it's a >>>>>>>>> fork, >>>>>>>>> though also make it clear I'd be standing on the shoulders of giants. >>>>>>>>> Personally, I'd like (1) because it keeps the project that people >>>>>>>>> rely on >>>>>>>>> alive. Since I'm new to the mailing list, I can't discern yet the >>>>>>>> sentiment >>>>>>>>> towards the project, except that everyone was quite happy to have it >>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>> dormant, so it feels like there's not a lot of desire to keep it >>>>>>>>> going -- >>>>>>>>> which is ok: everything comes to an end at some point, and, as stated >>>>>>>>> earlier, I'm sure there are good reasons for making log4net dormant. >>>>>>>>> As a >>>>>>>>> consumer of log4net, I'd much rather not have to switch over to >>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>> framework once there's an issue which affects me more than my logged >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> (inability to flush logs -- it was on a proof-of-concept project, so >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> isn't _that_ important to have the functionality right now). >>>>>>>>> Apologies for the rambling message. I was prompted to reach out by >>>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>>> Goers in the discussion for LOG4NET-606, so I hope I haven't been a >>>>>>>> bother. >>>>>>>>> -d >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>>>>>>>> If you say that getting the money is the most important thing >>>>>>>>> You will spend your life completely wasting your time >>>>>>>>> You will be doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>>>> In order to go on living >>>>>>>>> That is, to go on doing things you don't like doing >>>>>>>>> Which is stupid. >>>>>>>>> - Alan Watts >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY >>>>>>>>> *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. * >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker
