Tim, why not keep it on-list? That would allow others to chip in to your efforts with their experience, just like you are doing now. :-)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 5:34 PM Tim Sargent <bentwingedb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
