Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-28 Thread Davyd McColl 
Thanks Matt, then I'd consider this vote closed and the release ready to go 
as soon as I get to it (probably the end of the week).


Thanks to everyone who double-checked me.

-d


On December 29, 2021 02:23:16 Matt Sicker  wrote:


Yeah, you can close the vote before releasing.
--
Matt Sicker


On Dec 28, 2021, at 16:11, Davyd McColl  wrote:

Hi Matt, I'm happy to, just need to get the time to do the actually release 
(: holiday mode has kicked in good and proper. Can I close out before I 
release?


-d


On December 28, 2021 21:37:21 Matt Sicker  wrote:

Seems like we have enough votes to complete this release. Davyd, would you 
like to close the vote?

--
Matt Sicker


On Dec 25, 2021, at 14:50, Remko Popma  wrote:
+1
On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 6:35 AM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

+1
I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.
I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice
files are present.
I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.
Ralph

On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
the dist repository where you commit releases.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner 

wrote:

* old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
* @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
The changes in the release look good to me. +1
On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:

Thanks Matt
Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address

these

points in the near future.
-d
On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:

+1
Notes on the release:
* I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file

for

easier discoverability.
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at

this

point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this

again

in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
* Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are

missing

copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,

the

appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
- Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
- Gulp task source files missing headers
* Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and

NOTICE

(besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries

in

the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
--
Matt Sicker

On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
Hi all
I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up

on

the

pre-release page at

https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing

with

respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download

links

on

the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure

if

I

should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.
Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts

myself.

Much appreciated.
-d
PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere

along the

way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *

--
Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-28 Thread Matt Sicker 
Yeah, you can close the vote before releasing.
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 28, 2021, at 16:11, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt, I'm happy to, just need to get the time to do the actually release 
> (: holiday mode has kicked in good and proper. Can I close out before I 
> release?
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> On December 28, 2021 21:37:21 Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
>> Seems like we have enough votes to complete this release. Davyd, would you 
>> like to close the vote?
>> --
>> Matt Sicker
>> 
>>> On Dec 25, 2021, at 14:50, Remko Popma  wrote:
>>> +1
>>> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 6:35 AM Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
 +1
 I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.
 I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice
 files are present.
 I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.
 Ralph
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
> the dist repository where you commit releases.
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner 
 wrote:
>> * old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
>> * @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
>> The changes in the release look good to me. +1
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:
>>> Thanks Matt
>>> Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address
 these
>>> points in the near future.
>>> -d
>>> On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
 +1
 Notes on the release:
 * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file
 for
 easier discoverability.
 * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
>>> this
 point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
>>> again
 in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
 * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
>>> missing
 copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
>>> the
 appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
 - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
 - Gulp task source files missing headers
 * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
 which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE
 (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries
 in
 the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
 --
 Matt Sicker
> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> Hi all
> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up
 on
>>> the
> pre-release page at
 https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing
 with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download
 links
>>> on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure
 if
>>> I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.
> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
>>> myself.
> Much appreciated.
> -d
> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
>>> along the
> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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. *
>> --
>> Dominik Psenner
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-28 Thread Davyd McColl 
Hi Matt, I'm happy to, just need to get the time to do the actually release 
(: holiday mode has kicked in good and proper. Can I close out before I 
release?


-d


On December 28, 2021 21:37:21 Matt Sicker  wrote:

Seems like we have enough votes to complete this release. Davyd, would you 
like to close the vote?

--
Matt Sicker


On Dec 25, 2021, at 14:50, Remko Popma  wrote:

+1

On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 6:35 AM Ralph Goers 
wrote:


+1

I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.

I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice
files are present.

I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.

Ralph



On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:

Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
the dist repository where you commit releases.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner 

wrote:


* old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
* @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?

The changes in the release look good to me. +1

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:


Thanks Matt

Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address

these

points in the near future.

-d


On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:


+1

Notes on the release:
* I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file

for

easier discoverability.
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at

this

point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this

again

in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
* Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are

missing

copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,

the

appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
- Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
- Gulp task source files missing headers
* Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and

NOTICE

(besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries

in

the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.

--
Matt Sicker


On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:

Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up

on

the

pre-release page at


https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1


I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing

with

respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download

links

on

the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure

if

I

should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts

myself.

Much appreciated.

-d

PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere

along the

way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *







--
Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-28 Thread Matt Sicker 
Seems like we have enough votes to complete this release. Davyd, would you like 
to close the vote?
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 25, 2021, at 14:50, Remko Popma  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 6:35 AM Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.
>> 
>> I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice
>> files are present.
>> 
>> I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
>>> the dist repository where you commit releases.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner 
>> wrote:
 
 * old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
 * @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
 
 The changes in the release look good to me. +1
 
 On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:
 
> Thanks Matt
> 
> Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address
>> these
> points in the near future.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Notes on the release:
>> * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file
>> for
>> easier discoverability.
>> * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
> this
>> point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
> again
>> in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
>> * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
> missing
>> copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
> the
>> appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
>> - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
>> - Gulp task source files missing headers
>> * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
>> which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
> NOTICE
>> (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries
>> in
>> the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
>> 
>> --
>> Matt Sicker
>> 
>>> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up
>> on
> the
>>> pre-release page at
>>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
>>> 
>>> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing
>> with
>>> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download
>> links
> on
>>> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure
>> if
> I
>>> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
>>> expected" for the vote to continue.
>>> 
>>> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
> myself.
>>> Much appreciated.
>>> 
>>> -d
>>> 
>>> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
>>> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
> along the
>>> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>> 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. *
>> 
> 
 
 
 --
 Dominik Psenner
>>> 
>> 
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-25 Thread Remko Popma 
+1

On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 6:35 AM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> +1
>
> I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.
>
> I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice
> files are present.
>
> I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >
> > Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
> > the dist repository where you commit releases.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> * old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
> >> * @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
> >>
> >> The changes in the release look good to me. +1
> >>
> >> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Matt
> >>>
> >>> Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address
> these
> >>> points in the near future.
> >>>
> >>> -d
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >>>
>  +1
> 
>  Notes on the release:
>  * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file
> for
>  easier discoverability.
>  * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
> >>> this
>  point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
> >>> again
>  in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
>  * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
> >>> missing
>  copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
> >>> the
>  appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
>   - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
>   - Gulp task source files missing headers
>  * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
>  which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
> >>> NOTICE
>  (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries
> in
>  the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
> 
>  --
>  Matt Sicker
> 
> > On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up
> on
> >>> the
> > pre-release page at
> >
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> >
> > I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing
> with
> > respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download
> links
> >>> on
> > the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure
> if
> >>> I
> > should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> > expected" for the vote to continue.
> >
> > Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
> >>> myself.
> > Much appreciated.
> >
> > -d
> >
> > PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> > davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
> >>> along the
> > way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > 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. *
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dominik Psenner
> >
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-24 Thread Ralph Goers 
+1

I checked the signature and hashes and those look good.  

I unzipped the source and binaries. The appropriate license and notice files 
are present.

I did not perform tests as I don’t have the necessary tools installed.

Ralph


> On Dec 23, 2021, at 1:36 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
> the dist repository where you commit releases.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>> 
>> * old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
>> * @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
>> 
>> The changes in the release look good to me. +1
>> 
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Matt
>>> 
>>> Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address these
>>> points in the near future.
>>> 
>>> -d
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>> 
 +1
 
 Notes on the release:
 * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file for
 easier discoverability.
 * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
>>> this
 point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
>>> again
 in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
 * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
>>> missing
 copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
>>> the
 appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
  - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
  - Gulp task source files missing headers
 * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
 which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE
 (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries in
 the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
 
 --
 Matt Sicker
 
> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on
>>> the
> pre-release page at
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> 
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links
>>> on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if
>>> I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.
> 
> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
>>> myself.
> Much appreciated.
> 
> -d
> 
> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
>>> along the
> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> 
> 
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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. *
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dominik Psenner
>

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-23 Thread Matt Sicker 
Root keys are in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/KEYS which is in
the dist repository where you commit releases.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 2:03 AM Dominik Psenner  wrote:
>
> * old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
> * @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?
>
> The changes in the release look good to me. +1
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Matt
> >
> > Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address these
> > points in the near future.
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> > On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Notes on the release:
> > > * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file for
> > > easier discoverability.
> > > * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
> > this
> > > point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
> > again
> > > in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
> > > * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
> > missing
> > > copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
> > the
> > > appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
> > >   - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
> > >   - Gulp task source files missing headers
> > > * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
> > > which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
> > NOTICE
> > > (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries in
> > > the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Sicker
> > >
> > >> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi all
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on
> > the
> > >> pre-release page at
> > >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> > >>
> > >> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> > >> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links
> > on
> > >> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if
> > I
> > >> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> > >> expected" for the vote to continue.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
> > myself.
> > >> Much appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> -d
> > >>
> > >> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> > >> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
> > along the
> > >> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > >> 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. *
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-20 Thread Dominik Psenner 
* old-log4net.snk.gpg has been the old key to sign binaries.
* @Matt, where is the root logging KEYS file located?

The changes in the release look good to me. +1

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 07:34, Davyd McColl  wrote:

> Thanks Matt
>
> Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address these
> points in the near future.
>
> -d
>
>
> On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Notes on the release:
> > * I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file for
> > easier discoverability.
> > * The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at
> this
> > point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this
> again
> > in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
> > * Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are
> missing
> > copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g.,
> the
> > appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
> >   - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
> >   - Gulp task source files missing headers
> > * Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum
> > which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and
> NOTICE
> > (besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries in
> > the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> >> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on
> the
> >> pre-release page at
> >> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> >>
> >> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> >> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links
> on
> >> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if
> I
> >> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> >> expected" for the vote to continue.
> >>
> >> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts
> myself.
> >> Much appreciated.
> >>
> >> -d
> >>
> >> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> >> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere
> along the
> >> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >> 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. *
> >
>


-- 
Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-19 Thread Davyd McColl 

Thanks Matt

Since you've given a +1, I'll write up some sticky notes to address these 
points in the near future.


-d


On December 19, 2021 23:51:45 Matt Sicker  wrote:


+1

Notes on the release:
* I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file for 
easier discoverability.
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at this 
point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this again 
in a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
* Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are missing 
copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g., the 
appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)

  - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
  - Gulp task source files missing headers
* Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum 
which is the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE 
(besides the outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries in 
the source zip, appropriate files in the binary zip.


--
Matt Sicker


On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:

Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
pre-release page at
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
Much appreciated.

-d

PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-19 Thread Matt Sicker 
+1

Notes on the release:
* I’ve copied your release signing key to the root logging KEYS file for easier 
discoverability.
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file is a few years out of date at this 
point. I’ve updated this in master, though you’ll want to update this again in 
a couple weeks when it’s outdated again.
* Some included files in the base directory of the source zip are missing 
copyright headers or shouldn’t even be included in the tarball (e.g., the 
appveyor config file probably isn’t necessary)
  - Not sure what old-log4net.snk.gpg is in there for, either.
  - Gulp task source files missing headers
* Artifact signatures and sha512 hashes look good (checked with shasum which is 
the Perl script version), contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE (besides the 
outdated copyright year, but not a blocker), no binaries in the source zip, 
appropriate files in the binary zip.

--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:47, Davyd McColl  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
> pre-release page at
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
> 
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.
> 
> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
> Much appreciated.
> 
> -d
> 
> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
> 
> 
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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. *

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-19 Thread Matt Sicker 
I’ve added Davyd’s key to the logging KEYS file. It appears I had already 
signed it a while back but hadn’t copied it to this KEYS file already. Do note 
that his key was available in https://downloads.apache.org/logging/log4net/KEYS 
 which isn’t as obvious as 
the parent directory, so the only change here was copying the same key.
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 18, 2021, at 17:22, Robert Middleton  wrote:
> 
> I think Matt or somebody would just have to add your key to the KEYS file.
> 
> Otherwise, I have validated the checksums and the key, so +1 from me.
> I did not validate that anything builds, as I don't do .NET.
> 
> -Robert Middleton
> 
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:53 AM Davyd McColl  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robert
>> 
>> I checked and saw the same sha discrepencies - the only reason I can think 
>> of is perhaps I interrupted a release script such that I had updated 
>> artifacts but interrupted before the shas were computed. Fixed-up now, 
>> thanks for the heads-up. Just to be sure, I've updated the release artifacts 
>> at GitHub too.
>> 
>> -d
>> 
>> On 2021-12-17 08:28:35, Davyd McColl  wrote:
>> Hi Robert
>> Binaries are signed with my key, though I remember someone raising that my 
>> key wasn't in a known area last time, so I'd appreciate help with that. I 
>> had a key signing party with Ralph and Matt quite a long time ago, but 
>> perhaps there's something I was supposed to do that I didn't ):
>> The sha mismatch is more concerning because the production of artifacts is 
>> automated from a script in the repo, so I'll need to go double-check what's 
>> going on there. Thanks for the heads-up though.
>> -d
>> 
>> On December 17, 2021 02:17:24 Robert Middleton  wrote:
>> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
>> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
>> [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on
>> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
>> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
>> expected" for the vote to continue.
>> 
>> 
>> My understanding is that you don't upload to the release area until
>> the release is done.  Having the staging docs point at the release
>> area is fine to me at least(it's what I do for log4cxx), since that's
>> effectively a known issue with a release vote in my mind.
>> Anyway, I checked the binaries on
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
>> [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], unfortunately it seems
>> as though there may be two problems:
>> 1. SHA512 does not match the zip files at all
>> 2. Signature doesn't seem to be valid, or I don't have the pubkey.
>> Which key is it signed with?
>> -Robert Middleton
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:47 AM Davyd McColl  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all
>> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
>> pre-release page at
>> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1 
>> [https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1]
>> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
>> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
>> [https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on
>> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
>> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
>> expected" for the vote to continue.
>> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
>> Much appreciated.
>> -d
>> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
>> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
>> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
>> 
>> --
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> 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 
>> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY]
>> *Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. *

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-17 Thread Davyd McColl 
Hi Robert

I checked and saw the same sha discrepencies - the only reason I can think of 
is perhaps I interrupted a release script such that I had updated artifacts but 
interrupted before the shas were computed. Fixed-up now, thanks for the 
heads-up. Just to be sure, I've updated the release artifacts at GitHub too.

-d

On 2021-12-17 08:28:35, Davyd McColl  wrote:
Hi Robert
Binaries are signed with my key, though I remember someone raising that my key 
wasn't in a known area last time, so I'd appreciate help with that. I had a key 
signing party with Ralph and Matt quite a long time ago, but perhaps there's 
something I was supposed to do that I didn't ):
The sha mismatch is more concerning because the production of artifacts is 
automated from a script in the repo, so I'll need to go double-check what's 
going on there. Thanks for the heads-up though.
-d

On December 17, 2021 02:17:24 Robert Middleton  wrote:
I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
[https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.


My understanding is that you don't upload to the release area until
the release is done.  Having the staging docs point at the release
area is fine to me at least(it's what I do for log4cxx), since that's
effectively a known issue with a release vote in my mind.
Anyway, I checked the binaries on
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
[https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], unfortunately it seems
as though there may be two problems:
1. SHA512 does not match the zip files at all
2. Signature doesn't seem to be valid, or I don't have the pubkey.
Which key is it signed with?
-Robert Middleton
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:47 AM Davyd McColl  wrote:


Hi all
I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
pre-release page at
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1 
[https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1]
I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging 
[https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging], but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.
Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
Much appreciated.
-d
PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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 
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gXTZM_uPMY]
*Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. *

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-17 Thread Davyd McColl 

Hi Dominik

The staging site is updated. Really only release notes and download links 
changed - no api changes, so no sdk doc changes.


-d


On December 17, 2021 10:02:45 Dominik Psenner  wrote:


Hi Davyd,

I checked the changes since 2.0.13 and it looks good to me. Have you also
updated the log4net site? I would like to verify that the log4net website
looks good in staging.

Cheers
Dominik

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 15:09, Davyd McColl 
wrote:


Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
pre-release page at
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
Much appreciated.

-d




--
Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-17 Thread Dominik Psenner 
Hi Davyd,

I checked the changes since 2.0.13 and it looks good to me. Have you also
updated the log4net site? I would like to verify that the log4net website
looks good in staging.

Cheers
Dominik

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 15:09, Davyd McColl 
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
> pre-release page at
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
>
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.
>
> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
> Much appreciated.
>
> -d



-- 
Dominik Psenner

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-16 Thread Davyd McColl 

Hi Robert

Binaries are signed with my key, though I remember someone raising that my 
key wasn't in a known area last time, so I'd appreciate help with that. I 
had a key signing party with Ralph and Matt quite a long time ago, but 
perhaps there's something I was supposed to do that I didn't ):
The sha mismatch is more concerning because the production of artifacts is 
automated from a script in the repo, so I'll need to go double-check what's 
going on there. Thanks for the heads-up though.


-d


On December 17, 2021 02:17:24 Robert Middleton  wrote:


I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.


My understanding is that you don't upload to the release area until
the release is done.  Having the staging docs point at the release
area is fine to me at least(it's what I do for log4cxx), since that's
effectively a known issue with a release vote in my mind.

Anyway, I checked the binaries on
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, unfortunately it seems
as though there may be two problems:

1. SHA512 does not match the zip files at all
2. Signature doesn't seem to be valid, or I don't have the pubkey.
Which key is it signed with?

-Robert Middleton

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:47 AM Davyd McColl  wrote:


Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
pre-release page at
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
Much appreciated.

-d

PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *

Re: [VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-16 Thread Robert Middleton 
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.

My understanding is that you don't upload to the release area until
the release is done.  Having the staging docs point at the release
area is fine to me at least(it's what I do for log4cxx), since that's
effectively a known issue with a release vote in my mind.

Anyway, I checked the binaries on
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, unfortunately it seems
as though there may be two problems:

1. SHA512 does not match the zip files at all
2. Signature doesn't seem to be valid, or I don't have the pubkey.
Which key is it signed with?

-Robert Middleton

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:47 AM Davyd McColl  wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
> pre-release page at
> https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1
>
> I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
> respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
> the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
> should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
> expected" for the vote to continue.
>
> Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
> Much appreciated.
>
> -d
>
> PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
> davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
> way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.
>
>
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 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. *

[VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-16 Thread Davyd McColl 
Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the 
pre-release page at 
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with 
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on the 
staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I should 
rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as expected" for the 
vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself. Much 
appreciated.

-d

[VOTE] Release log4net 2.0.14

2021-12-16 Thread Davyd McColl 
Hi all

I'd like to raise a vote to release log4net 2.0.14. Changelog is up on the
pre-release page at
https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.14-rc1

I have updated staging docs and I _think_ I've done the right thing with
respect to getting binaries and source up to the dev repo at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging, but the download links on
the staging docs point to the release download area, so I'm not sure if I
should rather upload there so that staging documentation "works as
expected" for the vote to continue.

Thanks Ralph for assisting me in being able to uplodate artifacts myself.
Much appreciated.

-d

PS. This email is a duplicate of the one sent from my work email (
davyd.mcc...@codeo.co.za) which I believe has been lost somewhere along the
way. Please ignore the other if it pops up.


-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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. *