Sounds like there's a plan in place going forward, or at least the beginnings of a plan. I'm happy to help - I have a lot of experience with automated builds and releases but it's all based on the TFS build and release system. The principles should apply regardless of the system though.
Mr McColl - feel free to email me directly if I can be of assistance. Thanks. Tim On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:50 PM Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > The build scripts I made and use do indeed use msbuild (or the dotnet > wrapper around it, depending on environment) - they simply abstract away > finding the latest (or requested) version as well as calling conventions. > They can also use nuget or the dotnet command for packaging and package > pushing, depending on environment, as well as (currently) nunit or dotnet > for running tests. Think of them as orchestration, more than anything else. > > The trick is getting them out of a git submodule (the way they've been > consumed for around 7 years) and ease use by publishing to npm, a task I > currently have underway. > > -d > > > On April 8, 2020 21:42:47 Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Great to see log4net gains some momentum! If changing the build system is > > on the table, I would try sticking with the default msbuild capabilities. > > Especially useful is the MSBuild inline task capability [1]. > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/msbuild/msbuild-inline-tasks?view=vs-2019 > > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 08:56, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On progress reports: sure, I'll try to keep this list updated > >> On PRs: I'm happy to start helping once I've spent more time in the > >> codebase (which I will have to do anyway), so that I can give better > >> feedback. > >> > >> -d > >> On 2020-04-08 08:53:44, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good. If you wouldn’t mind, it would be nice if you could provide > >> progress reports on a regular schedule that works for you just so we > know > >> you are still working on it. > >> > >> Also, as you probably know we do get PRs and questions from time to time > >> that none of us are comfortable answering. It would be great if you, or > one > >> of the others who has expressed an interest in Log4Net, could respond to > >> them. > >> > >> Ralph > >> > >> > On Apr 7, 2020, at 11:18 PM, Davyd McColl wrote: > >> > > >> > Thanks Matt > >> > > >> > To clarify my plans, I will: > >> > 1. update the build system for log4net: I haven't seen any objection > to > >> using node-based build scripts as I have for my own packages, so I'll > head > >> down that path. Currently, I use those as a git submodule, but I'm quite > >> close to having them available as an npm package, so I'll complete that > >> first, test on my own code and, once I'm happy, use that in log4net, > unless > >> there are any objections. I've generally found that, as powerful as git > >> submodules are, they cause confusion as a lot of people don't seem to > >> understand how they work, which is the reason I'm converting my > gulp-tasks > >> repo to an npm package which can just be installed and run. > >> > > >> > I'm happy to use whatever works and everyone is comfortable with -- > >> personally, I'm quite comfortable with the infrastructure my scripts > >> provide and they're used by my current and previous employer for build, > so > >> they get worked out multiple times per day. > >> > > >> > 2. I think that the suggestion to use Docker is a good one, as it > would > >> mean that I don't have to place any burden on someone to ensure that > build > >> dependencies are available at Jenkins. My Docker-fu is, however, > feeble, so > >> I'm going to skill that up. Alternatively, if people are motivated to > get a > >> release out sooner, setting up Docker can be delayed if the following > >> dependencies are available at the build host: > >> > - node (preferably the current lts, 12, but 8+ should work) > >> > - dotnet core sdk 3.1 > >> > - .Net Framework 4.6.2 or higher (if a windows host) or Mono 5 (Linux > / > >> OSX host) > >> > In lieu of any communications to the contrary, I'll assume that > getting > >> dependencies onto the build server is a less-desirable / impossible > >> outcome, so I'll be chasing the Docker route. > >> > > >> > 3. When 1 & 2 are ready, I will raise a PR against the log4net GitHub > >> repo. > >> > > >> > I expect this might take a little while, so please bear with me. > >> > > >> > -d > >> > > >> > On 2020-04-07 17:48:50, Matt Sicker wrote: > >> > Speaking of the Jenkins build, if you want to use Docker images to > >> > create a build environment, that's also supported. > >> > > >> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:46, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> >> > >> >> 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 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 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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Matt Sicker > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Dominik Psenner > > >
