My +1
Ralph
> On Jul 22, 2018, at 9:44 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.11.1, the next version of the Log4j 2
> project.
>
> Please download, test, and cast your votes on the log4j developers list.
> [] +1, release the artifacts
> [] -1, don't release because...
>
+1
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:00 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> +1
>
> Builds with Java 8 and 10 toolchain, though I had to add a dummy entry in
> my toolchains.xml for 9 for one of the modules (it should request a version
> range). Signatures good. Site looks fine, though I haven't looked through
>
+1
Builds with Java 8 and 10 toolchain, though I had to add a dummy entry in
my toolchains.xml for 9 for one of the modules (it should request a version
range). Signatures good. Site looks fine, though I haven't looked through
it as much as I have in the past.
More info on build system:
Apache
+1
I've tested the snapshot similarly and ran a suite of benchmarks
overnight without signs of performance degradation in my usage.
Best,
Carter
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> More reviews please :-) More reviews please :-)
>
> I've already votes and FWIW I am testing
More reviews please :-) More reviews please :-)
I've already votes and FWIW I am testing the SNAPSHOT code in one our
product's CI builds (with contains lots of tests.)
Gary
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:44 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.11.1, the next version of the
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:59 AM Matt Sicker wrote:
> Can't we just set up our rat rules globally rather than via a profile? It'd
> be nice if CI could catch missing license headers before working on making
> an RC.
>
+1. I do not see why we need a profile.
Gary
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at
Can't we just set up our rat rules globally rather than via a profile? It'd
be nice if CI could catch missing license headers before working on making
an RC.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 at 11:30, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> When you do not use -P rat you are not using our configuration so you are
> including
When you do not use -P rat you are not using our configuration so you are
including files we specifically exclude. It is bound to fail if you don’t use
the profile.
Ralph
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 8:15 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Interesting. As part of the release I always run
>
> mvn -P rat -DskipTests clean verify
>
> And it failed to complain about that.
>
> As far as the MD5’s I seem to recall there was a recommendation not to use
> them but it wasn’t a mandate.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:09 AM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Interesting. As part of the release I always run
>
> mvn -P rat -DskipTests clean verify
>
> And it failed to complain about that.
>
I first ran 'mvn clean install' which I should not have. But since I did
that first and THEN ran the RAT
Interesting. As part of the release I always run
mvn -P rat -DskipTests clean verify
And it failed to complain about that.
As far as the MD5’s I seem to recall there was a recommendation not to use them
but it wasn’t a mandate. I’m not sure where that email is.
Ralph
> On Jul 23, 2018, at
+1
- From src zip: ASC OK, SHA1 OK.
- Maven RAT check FAILs using 'mvn apache-rat:check':
Files with unapproved licenses:
C:/temp/rc/log4j/apache-log4j-2.11.1-src/log4j-cassandra/.toDelete
Not a blocker since this is not a "source" file but should be fixed ASAP
IMO to make RC reviews
Review still in progress, please ignore below.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:54 AM Gary Gregory wrote:
> +1
>
> From src zip: ASC OK, SHA1 OK.
>
> Maven RAT check OK using 'mvn apache-rat:check'.
>
> Clirr check using 'mvn clirr:check -pl log4j-api,log4j-1.2-api'
>
> Building 'mvn clean install' OK
+1
>From src zip: ASC OK, SHA1 OK.
Maven RAT check OK using 'mvn apache-rat:check'.
Clirr check using 'mvn clirr:check -pl log4j-api,log4j-1.2-api'
Building 'mvn clean install' OK using:
Apache Maven 3.5.4 (1edded0938998edf8bf061f1ceb3cfdeccf443fe;
2018-06-17T12:33:14-06:00)
Maven home:
Per Apache policy, we should NOT distribute MD5 hash files. This is not a
blocker as long as these files do not make it past this RC out to the dirt
release server.
Gary
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:44 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> This is a vote to release Log4j 2.11.1, the next version of the Log4j
15 matches
Mail list logo
