And the PR:

https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/2295




> On Aug 15, 2025, at 12:01, Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I’ve created a ticket to fix this:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-4959
> 
> Andor
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 18:37, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Andor, I notice a number of license files are inaccurate:
>> 
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff    11359 Aug  8 12:21
>> commons-io-2.11.0.LICENSE.txt
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff   515978 Aug  8 12:21 commons-io-2.17.0.jar
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff    36274 Aug  8 12:21
>> logback-classic-1.2.13.LICENSE.txt
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff   274470 Aug  8 12:21 logback-classic-1.3.15.jar
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff    36274 Aug  8 12:21
>> logback-core-1.2.13.LICENSE.txt
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff   571734 Aug  8 12:21 logback-core-1.3.15.jar
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff     1133 Aug  8 12:21 slf4j-1.7.30.LICENSE.txt
>> -rw-r--r--@  1 phunt  staff    68605 Aug  8 12:21 slf4j-api-2.0.13.jar
>> 
>> Might be more than this (if new deps added?) but these are the obvious ones
>> I noticed. I think they need to be addressed/new RC.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Patrick
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 6:07 PM Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, it’s correct, it does include code changes for other issues, but the
>>> logging dependency change specifically didn’t involve any code change.
>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>> 
>>> Andor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 8, 2025, at 23:11, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Looking at the list of changes, I think I misunderstood the wording. This
>>>> does include ZK code changes, but the specific logging dependency change
>>>> did not involve ZK changes. Other fixes did involve ZK code changes. Is
>>>> that correct?
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2025, 00:09 Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> -0 (non-binding). If no ZK changes occurred, then I don't think it's
>>> worth
>>>>> the effort and sends the message that ZK is responsible for users'
>>>>> classpath security. I think that's the wrong message to send, because
>>> users
>>>>> should be responsible for their classpath.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Instead, I think a message to the user mailing list recommending users
>>>>> update their logging dependencies would be a better action to take,
>>> along
>>>>> with a note on the downloads page for the same. That would be a
>>> responsible
>>>>> action without sending the wrong message.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If this accompanied actual ZK changes, I would say +1, though (still
>>>>> non-binding, of course).
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025, 17:07 Andor Molnar <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a release candidate for 3.9.4.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a minor release with bug- and security fixes. Important to note
>>>>>> that due to security issues we’ve upgraded logback to 1.3.15 and slf4j
>>> to
>>>>>> 2.0.13. No ZooKeeper code changes have been involved in this upgrade,
>>> but
>>>>>> the SLF4j upgrade was a major version increase, so keep an eye on that
>>>>>> during your testing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The full release notes is available at:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310801&version=12355230
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote by August 15th 2025, 23:59 UTC+0.
>>> ***
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Source files:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/zookeeper/zookeeper-3.9.4-candidate-1/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maven staging repo:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachezookeeper-1109/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The release candidate tag in git to be voted upon: release-3.9.4-1
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/tree/release-3.9.4-1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ZooKeeper's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/zookeeper/KEYS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The staging version of the website is:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/zookeeper/zookeeper-3.9.4-candidate-1/website/index.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should we release this candidate?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Reply via email to