Re: Copyright 1969?

I think this should be fixed with the latest logging-parent pom. The timestamp of the build is set at the time of release so that subsequent builds of that tag still end up with the same output timestamp. On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:37 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > > Is this a side effect of the reprodu

Re: [LOG4J2-3319] Fragment vs bundle for log4j-1.2-api

While I'm not a fan of this Fragment-Bundle workaround, if it works well enough for our OSGi users, then that's fine. I've fixed some incorrect values in some modules (they should usually be org.apache.logging.log4j.core as log4j-core is the "full" bundle all the plugin bundles are "fragments" of).

log4j-tools and log4j-maven-shade-plugin-extensions

*TL;DR* I propose moving the `log4j-server` module of the `log4j-tools` project to a PR, merging `log4j-maven-shade-plugin-extensions` PR, and releasing `log4j-tools`. Objections? *Long story* Months months ago, I talked about onboarding the maven-shaded-log4j-transformer

Fwd: [apache/logging-log4j2] Bump tomcat-catalina from 8.5.20 to 10.0.14 (PR #662)

This Tomcat upgrade looks legit to me. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate it if a Tomcat veteran could weigh in. -- Forwarded message - From: knoxyz Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [apache/logging-log4j2] Bump tomcat-catalina from 8.5.20 to 10.0.14 (PR #662) To: apache/l