Re: [log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

Guten Tag Robert Middleton, am Donnerstag, 30. Dezember 2021 um 00:24 schrieben Sie: > After taking a look at this, maybe the best option is to add the > throughput as a unit test so that we can set the path the same as the > other unit tests? If it fixes the path issue and enabling/disabling

Re: rat:check at verify

Pushed to both `release-2.x` and `master`. On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:25 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > I suggest hooking apache-rat:check up to the verify stage in Maven. This > will make CI run that goal too. Objections? >

Re: Published artifact hash files

I agree that would be great. Meanwhile, I am using this script/command to achieve the same result: for a in 1 256 512; do for f in `find . -type f -name "*.sha${a}"`; do claim=`cat $f |cut -d' ' -f1`; actual=`shasum ${f%.sha*} -a ${a} |cut -d' ' -f1`; if [[ "$claim" == "$actual" ]];

Re: [log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

On Windows, I manually copied troughputtests.exe to the installation directory (so log4cxx.dll is in the same directory). Perhaps it should be installed by cmake when BUILD_THROUGHPUT_TESTS is on.

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

I propose that this vote should stay open longer than 72 hours given that we are coming up on New Years and many people who would wish to weigh in might be on vacation right now. Tim > On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:29 PM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be

Re: [log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

After taking a look at this, maybe the best option is to add the throughput as a unit test so that we can set the path the same as the other unit tests? If it is not added as a unit test it won't be run(which is good), but if we enable the option it will run. You can also run individual tests

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be committers and later PMC members. Having at least three people maintaining anything is an Apache standard for maintaining vendor neutrality, ensuring a minimum number of people can verify release candidates to address security issues or any

Re: [log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

That looks like a cmake issue - could you try cmake version 3.22? I am still using Visual Studio 2019 Community Edition. Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

>Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without this PMC’s approval. Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and release fixes or they should approve reincubating. Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation, however,

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

You are a member of 2 ASF projects yet you don’t understand how the ASF works? Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without this PMC’s approval. You can certainly fork it outside the ASF but you cannot call it Log4j as the ASF owns the trademark. Sonatype would

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

If you are not interested in maintaining 1.x, please give it away (to another pmc or add pmc members) and that is it. Even if you all vote for option 1, then I would just reincubate 1.x or find an alternative route to make 1.2.18, 1.2.19 and so on. So what is the point of this vote then? You

[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

What “People”. So far you are the only person who seems interested. Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion thread. AFAIK that’s it. Two people does not make a community. Furthermore, Log4j 1 was declared EOL 6 years ago and has been unsupported for 9 years. It

Re: [VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

-1 as it is invalid to say the project is "end of life" provided there are people willing to support it. Vladimir

[VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x

Hello, as discussed in another thread, this is a vote about the future of log4j 1. This vote stays open for the usual 72h. Options are explained below. You can vote for: [ ] +1, Option 1 [ ] +1, Option 2 [ ] +/- 0, abstain [ ] -1 object against those options Option 1: Create a README.md

[ANNOUNCE} Apache Log4j 2.12.4 released for Java 7 (corrected links)

The Apache Log4j 2 team is pleased to announce the Log4j 2.12.4 release! Apache Log4j is a well known framework for logging application behavior. Log4j 2 is an upgrade to Log4j that provides significant improvements over its predecessor, Log4j 1.x, and provides many other modern features such

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6 released

The Apache Log4j 2 team is pleased to announce the Log4j 2.3.2 release! Apache log4j is a well known framework for logging application behavior. Log4j 2 is an upgrade to Log4j that provides significant improvements over its predecessor, Log4j 1.x, and provides many other modern features such

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Log4j 2.12.4 for Java 7 released

The Apache Log4j 2 team is pleased to announce the Log4j 2.12.4 release! Apache Log4j is a well known framework for logging application behavior. Log4j 2 is an upgrade to Log4j that provides significant improvements over its predecessor, Log4j 1.x, and provides many other modern features such

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6

Thanks! This vote is now closed with 6 +1 votes and one +0 vote. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 12:46, Ron Grabowski > wrote: > > +0 no concerns, I'm just not at a machine where I can verify >On Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 01:40:50 PM EST, Matt Sicker > wrote: > > I’m waiting

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6

+0 no concerns, I'm just not at a machine where I can verify On Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 01:40:50 PM EST, Matt Sicker wrote: I’m waiting to see if Ron or any other PMC members wanted to review this before I close the vote and continue with the release. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6

I’m waiting to see if Ron or any other PMC members wanted to review this before I close the vote and continue with the release. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 11:42, Matt Sicker wrote: > > My +1 > -- > Matt Sicker > >> On Dec 29, 2021, at 10:35, Carter Kozak >

Re: Maven published jars not matching jars downloaded from apache.org?

This is something that has been fixed (or will be fixed) in recent versions. This was caused by one of the Maven plugins in use outputting the current timestamp when it was run into the manifest file which got written for each invocation. New builds use reproducible timestamps instead generated

Re: Published artifact hash files

That would be great. Gary On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 12:54 Matt Sicker wrote: > The SHA files are generated via a Maven plugin that only outputs the hash, > not the filename. Looks like we need to figure out how to configure that. > -- > Matt Sicker > > > On Dec 29, 2021, at 02:53, Volkan Yazıcı

Re: rat:check at verify

Makes perfect sense to me to try to catch these problems as early as possible! -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 06:46, Gary Gregory wrote: > > +1 > > Gary > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 4:25 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > >> I suggest hooking apache-rat:check up to the verify stage in Maven.

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j Kotlin API 1.2.0-rc3

Yes, not a bad idea. I’m going to cancel this vote to roll a fourth release candidate. I’ll also try to fix the site style bug on the components pages (might just need to remove the custom styling and use a default maven-site-plugin theme). -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 03:22, Gary

Maven published jars not matching jars downloaded from apache.org?

We have noticed that many of the jars (almost all) when fetched by maven are different from the ones packaged in the bin.zip which are different from the bin.tar.gz? This was observed while trying to identify multiple jars recently e.g. log4j-core-2.14.0.jar

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j Scala API version 13.0-rc1

Yes, not a bad idea. I’m going to cancel this vote to roll a second release candidate. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 03:21, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Volkan's right, better to lead by example and use our latest and safest > > Gary > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 02:56 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: >

Re: Published artifact hash files

The SHA files are generated via a Maven plugin that only outputs the hash, not the filename. Looks like we need to figure out how to configure that. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 02:53, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > Certain hash files are not properly formatted (see below), can we (I?) fix >

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6

My +1 -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 10:35, Carter Kozak wrote: > > +1 > > $ mvn -version > Apache Maven 3.8.4 (9b656c72d54e5bacbed989b64718c159fe39b537) > Maven home: /opt/homebrew/Cellar/maven/3.8.4/libexec > Java version: 1.8.0_312, vendor: Azul Systems, Inc., runtime: >

[RESuLT][VOTE] Release Log4j 2.12.4-rc1 for Java 7

This vote passes with +1 votes from Gary Gregory, Ron Grabowsky, Remko Popma, Volkan Yazici, Carter Kozak, Matt Sicker and Ralph Goers. There were no other votes. I will continue with the release process. Ralph

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.12.4-rc1 for Java 7

My +1 Ralph > On Dec 29, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Matt Sicker wrote: > > +1 > > Checked build, archives, sigs. > -- > Matt Sicker > >> On Dec 29, 2021, at 10:49, Carter Kozak wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> rat and build look good, usual issues with mongo tests on m1 >> >> $mvn --version >> Apache Maven

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.12.4-rc1 for Java 7

+1 Checked build, archives, sigs. -- Matt Sicker > On Dec 29, 2021, at 10:49, Carter Kozak wrote: > > +1 > > rat and build look good, usual issues with mongo tests on m1 > > $mvn --version > Apache Maven 3.8.4 (9b656c72d54e5bacbed989b64718c159fe39b537) > Maven home:

Re: [log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

Perhaps we need to add a custom target to CMake to make it runnable? I think that would then hook into visual studio to make it easy to run; I'll try to take a look at it tonight. The part of the CMakeLists.txt file that does that was copy from one directory up, so it could be a directory level

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.12.4-rc1 for Java 7

+1 rat and build look good, usual issues with mongo tests on m1 $mvn --version Apache Maven 3.8.4 (9b656c72d54e5bacbed989b64718c159fe39b537) Maven home: /opt/homebrew/Cellar/maven/3.8.4/libexec Java version: 1.8.0_312, vendor: Azul Systems, Inc., runtime:

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j 2.3.2 for Java 6

+1 $ mvn -version Apache Maven 3.8.4 (9b656c72d54e5bacbed989b64718c159fe39b537) Maven home: /opt/homebrew/Cellar/maven/3.8.4/libexec Java version: 1.8.0_312, vendor: Azul Systems, Inc., runtime: /Users/ckozak/.tools/jdk/zulu8.58.0.13-ca-jdk8.0.312-macosx_aarch64/zulu-8.jdk/Contents/Home/jre

Re: rat:check at verify

+1 Gary On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 4:25 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > I suggest hooking apache-rat:check up to the verify stage in Maven. This > will make CI run that goal too. Objections? >

[log4cxx] How to run the throughput test?

Hi everyone, I just tried to run the throughput test: Installed FMT using VCPKG, changed CMAKE to option that test ON and things built successfully. Though, running fails because log4cxx.dll can't be found. In theory CMAKE should already handle that using the following line: >

rat:check at verify

I suggest hooking apache-rat:check up to the verify stage in Maven. This will make CI run that goal too. Objections?

Re: [VOTE] Release Log4j Kotlin API 1.2.0-rc3

I agree w Volkan here as well. Gary On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 02:53 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Shall we cancel this, upgrade to 2.17.1, and revote? > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:02 AM Matt Sicker wrote: > > > This is a vote to release Log4j Kotlin API version 1.2.0, the next > version > > of the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Log4j Scala API version 13.0-rc1

Volkan's right, better to lead by example and use our latest and safest Gary On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 02:56 Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Shall we cancel this, upgrade to 2.17.1, and revote? > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:45 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > > > This is a vote to release Log4j Scala API 13.0.

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of Log4j 1.x

I am going to set up a vote for option 1 and 4. I think we have this thread open for a long time already and don't expect many other responses -- The Apache Software Foundation V.P., Data Privacy On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, at 07:55, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Agreed with all points of Carter. > > It is

Published artifact hash files

Certain hash files are not properly formatted (see below), can we (I?) fix this? wget \ --quiet \ --execute robots=off \ --timestamping \ --cut-dirs=7 \ --no-host-directories \ --recursive \ --page-requisites \ --no-parent \ --no-check-certificate \