You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4net-dev@logging.apache.org by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> on 2013/11/10 09:54:30 UTC
[VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Hi all,
per discussion of the last few days we intend to cut a final(?) release
from the 1.2.x branch fixing some problems with the ILog extensions and
compilation for the compact framework.
log4net 1.2.13 RC2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net
(revision 3469)
Details of changes since 1.2.12 are in the release notes:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/release/release-notes.html
(note, I've already committed the site ot the live system but it is
not reachable by any links - the 1.2.12 site is the one shown by default)
I have tested this with Mono and several .NET frameworks using NAnt.
The tag is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/tags/1.2.13RC2
(revision 1540448)
Site:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/
RAT Report:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/rat-report.html
Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 0900 GMT 13-Nov
2013
[ ] +1 Release these artifacts
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
Thanks!
Stefan
AW: LOG4NET-405 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2)
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
>On 2013-11-14, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure whether setting the encoding to UTF8 triggers some sort of
>>> different handling inside of the framweork's SMTP code even if the test
>>> was pure ASCII. If it doesn't, then I'm fine with UTF8.
>
>> and checking a few of my Gmail's mails it seems they default to UTF8.
I've
>> just spammed test messages, this is the code:
>
>OK, looks as if the main difference was UTF8 yields base64 encoding
>while ASCII yields quoted printable. In general any MUA should be able
>to deal with either and the difference likely is no big deal. I can
>live with keeping the default at UTF8.
I've come to the same conclusion, thus agreed.
Re: LOG4NET-405 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2)
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2013-11-14, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether setting the encoding to UTF8 triggers some sort of
>> different handling inside of the framweork's SMTP code even if the test
>> was pure ASCII. If it doesn't, then I'm fine with UTF8.
> and checking a few of my Gmail's mails it seems they default to UTF8. I've
> just spammed test messages, this is the code:
OK, looks as if the main difference was UTF8 yields base64 encoding
while ASCII yields quoted printable. In general any MUA should be able
to deal with either and the difference likely is no big deal. I can
live with keeping the default at UTF8.
Stefan
AW: LOG4NET-405 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2)
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
>> Thought of that too, but I decided to let it be in UTF8 cause its the
most
>> compatible format nowadays whereas ASCII is somewhat antique. What do
>you
>> think?
>
>IIUC ASCII would have been the implicit body encoding for log4net <
>1.2.12 so when looking for a backwards compatible default this would be
>the most natural choice.
>
>I'm not sure whether setting the encoding to UTF8 triggers some sort of
>different handling inside of the framweork's SMTP code even if the test
>was pure ASCII. If it doesn't, then I'm fine with UTF8.
>
>Maybe we should send two messages with a body only containing ASCII
>letters and compare the raw messages created with encoding set to ASCII
>or UTF8 respectively.
Agreed. FWIW, I found this:
http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/character_encoding/all
and checking a few of my Gmail's mails it seems they default to UTF8. I've
just spammed test messages, this is the code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MailAddress from = new
MailAddress("dpsenner@gmail.com");
MailAddress to = new
MailAddress("log4net-dev@logging.apache.org");
string host = "smtp.gmail.com";
int port = 25;
NetworkCredential networkCredentials = new
NetworkCredential("foo@gmail.com", "bar");
bool enableSsl = true;
Encoding[] subjectEncodings = new Encoding[] {
Encoding.ASCII, Encoding.UTF8 };
Encoding[] bodyEncodings = new Encoding[] {
Encoding.ASCII, Encoding.UTF8 };
List<byte> content = new List<byte>();
for (byte i = 0x20; i <= 0x7F; i++)
content.Add(i);
string[] subjects = new string[] { "ASCII:\t" +
Encoding.ASCII.GetString(content.ToArray()), "UTF8:\t" +
Encoding.UTF8.GetString(content.ToArray()) };
string[] bodies = new string[] { "ASCII:\t" +
Encoding.ASCII.GetString(content.ToArray()), "UTF8:\t" +
Encoding.UTF8.GetString(content.ToArray()) };
foreach (Encoding subjectEncoding in
subjectEncodings)
{
foreach (Encoding bodyEncoding in
bodyEncodings)
{
foreach (string subject in subjects)
{
foreach(string body in
bodies)
{
Console.WriteLine(@"
SubjectEncoding= {0}
BodyEncoding= {1}
Subject= {2}
Body= {3}", subjectEncoding.EncodingName,
bodyEncoding.EncodingName, subject, body);
SendMail(from, to,
string.Format("[LOG4NET-405 Test Mail] [{0}] [{1}] {2}",
subjectEncoding.EncodingName, bodyEncoding.EncodingName, subject),
subjectEncoding, body, bodyEncoding, host, port, networkCredentials,
enableSsl);
}
}
}
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void SendMail(MailAddress from, MailAddress
to, string subject, Encoding subjectEncoding, string body, Encoding
bodyEncoding, string host, int port, NetworkCredential credentials = null,
bool enableSsl = true, SmtpDeliveryMethod deliveryMethod =
SmtpDeliveryMethod.Network)
{
try
{
ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = new
RemoteCertificateValidationCallback(TrustAllCertificatesPolicy);
using (SmtpClient client = new
SmtpClient(host, port))
{
client.Timeout = 30 * 1000; // 10
seconds
// set properties
client.DeliveryMethod =
deliveryMethod;
client.EnableSsl = enableSsl;
client.UseDefaultCredentials =
(credentials == null);
client.Credentials = credentials;
// send message
using (MailMessage msg = new
MailMessage())
{
msg.From = from;
msg.To.Add(to);
msg.Body = body;
msg.BodyEncoding =
bodyEncoding;
msg.Subject = subject;
msg.SubjectEncoding =
subjectEncoding;
msg.Priority =
MailPriority.Normal;
// create and add
attachments
List<Attachment>
tmpAttachments = new List<Attachment>();
client.Send(msg);
}
}
}
finally
{
// restore default certificate validation
ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = null;
}
}
private static bool TrustAllCertificatesPolicy(object
sender, X509Certificate certificate, X509Chain chain, SslPolicyErrors
sslPolicyErrors)
{
return true;
}
}
LOG4NET-405 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2)
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2013-11-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> Thought of that too, but I decided to let it be in UTF8 cause its the most
> compatible format nowadays whereas ASCII is somewhat antique. What do you
> think?
IIUC ASCII would have been the implicit body encoding for log4net <
1.2.12 so when looking for a backwards compatible default this would be
the most natural choice.
I'm not sure whether setting the encoding to UTF8 triggers some sort of
different handling inside of the framweork's SMTP code even if the test
was pure ASCII. If it doesn't, then I'm fine with UTF8.
Maybe we should send two messages with a body only containing ASCII
letters and compare the raw messages created with encoding set to ASCII
or UTF8 respectively.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
Thought of that too, but I decided to let it be in UTF8 cause its the most
compatible format nowadays whereas ASCII is somewhat antique. What do you
think?
2013/11/13 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>
> On 2013-11-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>
> > To me it looks like I've broken the prior behaviour while trying to fix
> > LOG4NET-354 and LOG4NET-405 remedies that. *ouch*
>
> I see
>
> > Quoting:
> >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.mail.mailmessage.bodyenco
> > ding(v=vs.110).aspx
>
> >> The default character set is "us-ascii".
>
> > Here they do not mention the default encoding, but it will most likely be
> > Encoding.ASCII whereas Encoding.Default will most likely yield something
> > different.
>
> Shouldn't we change body encoding's default to ASCII, then?
>
> Stefan
>
--
Dominik Psenner
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2013-11-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> To me it looks like I've broken the prior behaviour while trying to fix
> LOG4NET-354 and LOG4NET-405 remedies that. *ouch*
I see
> Quoting:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.mail.mailmessage.bodyenco
> ding(v=vs.110).aspx
>> The default character set is "us-ascii".
> Here they do not mention the default encoding, but it will most likely be
> Encoding.ASCII whereas Encoding.Default will most likely yield something
> different.
Shouldn't we change body encoding's default to ASCII, then?
Stefan
AW: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
To me it looks like I've broken the prior behaviour while trying to fix
LOG4NET-354 and LOG4NET-405 remedies that. *ouch*
Quoting:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.mail.mailmessage.headerse
ncoding(v=vs.110).aspx
> The value of the HeadersEncoding property defaults to Encoding.UTF8
whereas Encoding.Default will most likely yield something different.
Quoting:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.mail.mailmessage.bodyenco
ding(v=vs.110).aspx
> The default character set is "us-ascii".
Here they do not mention the default encoding, but it will most likely be
Encoding.ASCII whereas Encoding.Default will most likely yield something
different.
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2013-11-13, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> 0
> LOG4NET-405 jumped in and I am about to commit a fix.
I'm not comfortable with putting that into 1.2.13. This changes a
default value which in turn might byte people relying on the old
default.
I don't have any problem with changing the default for 1.3.
Stefan
AW: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
0
LOG4NET-405 jumped in and I am about to commit a fix.
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
+1
Note: i have no Windows machine and was not able to verify building or other
technical checks. I have tested formal requirements though
On 10 Nov 2013, at 9:54, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> per discussion of the last few days we intend to cut a final(?) release
> from the 1.2.x branch fixing some problems with the ILog extensions and
> compilation for the compact framework.
>
> log4net 1.2.13 RC2 is available for review here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net
> (revision 3469)
>
> Details of changes since 1.2.12 are in the release notes:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/release/release-notes.html
>
> (note, I've already committed the site ot the live system but it is
> not reachable by any links - the 1.2.12 site is the one shown by default)
>
> I have tested this with Mono and several .NET frameworks using NAnt.
>
> The tag is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/tags/1.2.13RC2
> (revision 1540448)
>
> Site:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/
>
> RAT Report:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/rat-report.html
>
> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 0900 GMT 13-Nov
> 2013
>
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
> [ ] +0 OK, but...
> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stefan
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
[CANCELED][VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
Cancelling this vote as a bug has showned up that we want to fix before
cutting another release candidate.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
+1
Note: i have no Windows machine and was not able to verify building or other
technical checks. I have tested formal requirements though
On 10 Nov 2013, at 9:54, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> per discussion of the last few days we intend to cut a final(?) release
> from the 1.2.x branch fixing some problems with the ILog extensions and
> compilation for the compact framework.
>
> log4net 1.2.13 RC2 is available for review here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net
> (revision 3469)
>
> Details of changes since 1.2.12 are in the release notes:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/release/release-notes.html
>
> (note, I've already committed the site ot the live system but it is
> not reachable by any links - the 1.2.12 site is the one shown by default)
>
> I have tested this with Mono and several .NET frameworks using NAnt.
>
> The tag is here:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/tags/1.2.13RC2
> (revision 1540448)
>
> Site:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/
>
> RAT Report:
> http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/rat-report.html
>
> Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 0900 GMT 13-Nov
> 2013
>
> [ ] +1 Release these artifacts
> [ ] +0 OK, but...
> [ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
> [ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Stefan
---
http://www.grobmeier.de
@grobmeier
GPG: 0xA5CC90DB
[CANCELED][VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
Cancelling this vote as a bug has showned up that we want to fix before
cutting another release candidate.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2013-11-10, <ge...@telenet.be> wrote:
> Professionally I’m back to working with a .NET technology stack, so
> I’ll also try find time to contribute to .NET OSS projects again.
very much looking forward to it.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by ge...@telenet.be.
Stefan,
Thanks for the feedback, and thank you and Dominic for breathing new life into log4net!
Professionally I’m back to working with a .NET technology stack, so I’ll also try find time to contribute to .NET OSS projects again.
Gert
Van: Stefan Bodewig
Verzonden: zondag 10 november 2013 12:47
Aan: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org
Great to see you here, Gert!
On 2013-11-10, <ge...@telenet.be> wrote:
> no build for .NET 4.5, but I assume this was already discussed before
> and is planned for a subsequent release
We introduced the 4.0 builds in 2011 mainly because of the new security
model. Without that the 2.0 version worked just fine. In a similiar
vain the 4.0 version is supposed to be well suited for 4.5 and we'd only
add special builds when needed.
Targeting WinRT would require quite a bit of work.
Technically, NAnt doesn't support 4.5, yet, which is a hurdle. Also
AFAIU I wouldn't be able to target 4.0 on a machine with 4.5 installed
as it is an in-place update so building the release would require two
different Windows installations.
> do we position “net” binaries as targeting only MS .NET, or are they
> suppose to be cross-CLR / cross-platform?
The trunk of log4net (targeting log4net 1.3.x and dropping support for
.NET 1.x) uses the exact same source code to compile the net/2.0 and
mono/2.0 assemblies, there is no specific MONO define used right now.
As long as your version of Mono is recent enough (2.10 works well) the
"net" binaries should work fine.
I intend to add builds for mono-3.5 and 4.0 (based on Mono 2.10 as NAnt
has problems with Mono 3.x) to verify the newer assemblies work for them
as well.
The goal is to keep platform dependenencies to a minimum but also accept
them when needed - i.e. we wouldn't rule out supporting a certain
feature just because it wasn't supported on all platforms.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
Great to see you here, Gert!
On 2013-11-10, <ge...@telenet.be> wrote:
> no build for .NET 4.5, but I assume this was already discussed before
> and is planned for a subsequent release
We introduced the 4.0 builds in 2011 mainly because of the new security
model. Without that the 2.0 version worked just fine. In a similiar
vain the 4.0 version is supposed to be well suited for 4.5 and we'd only
add special builds when needed.
Targeting WinRT would require quite a bit of work.
Technically, NAnt doesn't support 4.5, yet, which is a hurdle. Also
AFAIU I wouldn't be able to target 4.0 on a machine with 4.5 installed
as it is an in-place update so building the release would require two
different Windows installations.
> do we position “net” binaries as targeting only MS .NET, or are they
> suppose to be cross-CLR / cross-platform?
The trunk of log4net (targeting log4net 1.3.x and dropping support for
.NET 1.x) uses the exact same source code to compile the net/2.0 and
mono/2.0 assemblies, there is no specific MONO define used right now.
As long as your version of Mono is recent enough (2.10 works well) the
"net" binaries should work fine.
I intend to add builds for mono-3.5 and 4.0 (based on Mono 2.10 as NAnt
has problems with Mono 3.x) to verify the newer assemblies work for them
as well.
The goal is to keep platform dependenencies to a minimum but also accept
them when needed - i.e. we wouldn't rule out supporting a certain
feature just because it wasn't supported on all platforms.
Stefan
Re: [VOTE] Release Log4Net 1.2.13 based on RC2
Posted by ge...@telenet.be.
+1
with following questions/remarks:
no build for .NET 4.5, but I assume this was already discussed before and is planned for a subsequent release
do we position “net” binaries as targeting only MS .NET, or are they suppose to be cross-CLR / cross-platform?
Van: Stefan Bodewig
Verzonden: zondag 10 november 2013 9:54
Aan: log4net-dev@logging.apache.org, general@logging.apache.org
Hi all,
per discussion of the last few days we intend to cut a final(?) release
from the 1.2.x branch fixing some problems with the ILog extensions and
compilation for the compact framework.
log4net 1.2.13 RC2 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4net
(revision 3469)
Details of changes since 1.2.12 are in the release notes:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/release/release-notes.html
(note, I've already committed the site ot the live system but it is
not reachable by any links - the 1.2.12 site is the one shown by default)
I have tested this with Mono and several .NET frameworks using NAnt.
The tag is here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4net/tags/1.2.13RC2
(revision 1540448)
Site:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/
RAT Report:
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/log4net-1.2.13/rat-report.html
Votes, please. This vote will close in 72 hours, 0900 GMT 13-Nov
2013
[ ] +1 Release these artifacts
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
Thanks!
Stefan