Hello,
this is the result of the below vote:
11x +1 (Option 1), all binding
1 x +0 (abstaing), non binding
1x -1 (objection against those options), non binding.
Details:
+1, Option 1
Dominik Psenner (binding)
Robert Middleton (binding)
Gary Gregory (binding)
Ralph Goers (binding)
Matt Sicker (bi
+1, option 1
Apologies for the delay, took me a while to find the original email.
-d
On December 29, 2021 21:33:35 "Christian Grobmeier"
wrote:
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 explain
+1, option 1
--
Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
them.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022, 22:19 Remko Popma wrote:
> +1 for Option 1
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 4:51 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
>
> > +1, Option 1
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, 20:33 Christian Grobmeier
> > w
+1 for Option 1
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 4:51 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote:
> +1, Option 1
>
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, 20:33 Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>
> > 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
+1, Option 1
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, 20:33 Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> 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
>
+1 for Option 1
On 12/29/2021 2:33 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
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, absta
+1 Option 1
-ck
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 14:33, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> 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,
+1, Option 1
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, at 20:33, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> 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
Hi Leo,
good new year to you!
On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, at 07:12, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Happy new year everyone!
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>> Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion
>> thread.
>
>
> I'm here. I did mention in a co
Hey,
Happy new year everyone!
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion
> thread.
I'm here. I did mention in a couple mails I'd be away. Real life happens :).
I think I made clear what I am interested in through
I’m +1 for option one. For projects that ignored published CVEs for multiple
years and then ignored the EOL announcement, I don’t see any reason they’d
bother updating their ancient copies. Given the release difficulty in making
something that’s compatible with previous releases makes this even
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022, at 18:19, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 4:40 PM Xeno Amess wrote:
>
>> > People should migrate to log4j2.
>> good thinking, but what if they migrate to logback...
>
> No, it's not (good thinking, that is).
>
> Log4j1 is a part of basically *every* Java bas
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 4:40 PM Xeno Amess wrote:
> > People should migrate to log4j2.
> good thinking, but what if they migrate to logback...
No, it's not (good thinking, that is).
Log4j1 is a part of basically *every* Java based server software, that
I am aware of. People don't want to touch
Discussion shouldn’t happen on the main vote thread please.
Users are certainly free to use Logback. If they are OK with losing log events
during reconfiguration and using a framework that is maintained by one person
and are OK when he disappears for a year and a half that is their choice.
Plea
+0
> People should migrate to log4j2.
good thinking, but what if they migrate to logback...
IMO logback is a thing more likely log4j1 than log4j2, just user side.
Ralph Goers 于2022年1月1日周六 23:18写道：
> +1 to Option 1
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 29, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
> >
s message-id, so it might look like a single thread.
>
> See both "[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x" and "[VOTE] Future of Log4j
> 1.x"
> at https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@logging.apache.org
>
> Vladimir
+1 to Option 1
Ralph
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>
> 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
[X] +1, Option 1
Gary
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 2:33 PM Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> 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 to option 1
-Robert Middleton
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 2:33 PM Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
>
> 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, Opti
k like a single thread.
See both "[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x" and "[VOTE] Future of Log4j
1.x"
at https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@logging.apache.org
Vladimir
If there is long term commitment apart from these urgent fixes we can run
another vote.
You cannot guarantee you are alive by February, nobody can give such guarantees.
The logging pmc is not here to accept all patches as they come in but to make
decisions best to the project (among other dutie
Makes sense. I will close thus vote not earlier than Jan 5, if there is no
further objections. Thanks for your input Tim
--
The Apache Software Foundation
V.P., Data Privacy
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, at 01:56, Tim Perry wrote:
> I propose that this vote should stay open longer than 72 hours given
+1, Option 1
People should migrate to log4j2.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 01:56, Tim Perry wrote:
> 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
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 c
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 ot
>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,
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 b
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 can't
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 will
-1 as it is invalid to say the project is "end of life" provided there are
people willing to support it.
Vladimir
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 t
31 matches
Mail list logo
