Excellent info, thank you Ralph!
Gary
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:06 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> As this falls into a “procedural issue” from
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I used
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That
As this falls into a “procedural issue” from
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I used
Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless
otherwise stated. That is, if there
are more favourable votes than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to
have p
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 17:57, Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
>
> 1) I stand corrected, I misinterpreted the phonebook (I watched on bold
> records only), so your calculation was correct. Sorry for that.
Entries in bold are ASF members.
> > which was only started 19 hours ago
>
> "vote count != consens
>Last I recalled I was a PMC member of this group.
>Probably check the link again you sent
Sorry for that, I misinterpreted the data (I watched bold records only for
unknown reasons).
The initial calculation by Ralph was right.
Vladimir
1) I stand corrected, I misinterpreted the phonebook (I watched on bold
records only), so your calculation was correct. Sorry for that.
> which was only started 19 hours ago
"vote count != consensus", and the key we seek is consensus (e.g.
agreement).
For instance, if the tally is like +5 -2, the
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 17:03, Carter Kozak wrote:
>
> You can find the PMC list here:
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=logging
AFAIK that uses the LDAP group.
The official list is derived from committee-info.txt as shown by Whimsy:
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/loggin
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 17:59, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
>
> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> of Logging as per
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
>
> So the updated summary is
>
> Bi
Vladimir: It is traditional for the person who called the VOTE to tally the
VOTE which was only started 19 hours ago. Is 19 hours the way you normally
run VOTE threads at JMeter? Please do not attempt to cut VOTEs short to
force your agenda. People change their minds sometimes.
PMC: The repo VOTE
You can find the PMC list here:
https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=logging
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 11:59, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
>
> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> of Logging as per
> https:/
AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
of Logging as per
https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
So the updated summary is
Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
Sicke
I am closing this vote as I believe all PMC members who desire to vote on this
have done so.
The vote to perform the following steps passes:
1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
Hi Vladimir,
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 13:51, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> Dominik,
>
> Are you willing to add committers and PMC members to the log4j 1.x
> community?
if we add people, then we add it to the logging project. There is no separate
log4j/log4php whatever community. We are one commun
"we are doing a CVE+" -> "we might do a CVE+"
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 09:19 Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi Volkan,
> Nothing is ideal or great about a Log4j1 revival IMO. I still see more
> cons than pros. I understand that some people choose to stay stuck on it
> despite the 2015 EOL marker. I wish I'd
Hi Volkan,
Nothing is ideal or great about a Log4j1 revival IMO. I still see more cons
than pros. I understand that some people choose to stay stuck on it despite
the 2015 EOL marker. I wish I'd joined that debate club in high school so I
could better articulate my arguments for pulling these folks
As PMC member I voted to make the source code available in a git
repository. The git repository and the mailing list are all the tools
needed to prepare contributions and fixes. It allows for easy forking and
contributions to prosper. I would love to see this cause the community to
grow. It would b
Dominik,
Are you willing to add committers and PMC members to the log4j 1.x
community?
If you forbid issues and pull requests, then it goes against the idea of
adding new commuters and PMC members for 1.x.
How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
forbid pull requests, forb
My reasoning behind my +1 vote is that it is good to have the log4j1
repository on git, aligned with other repositories and easily available to
the public.
As a starter, the repository should clearly mention its EOL and NOT provide
any interactivity through issues and pull requests.
--
Sent from
+1
Goal needs to be stated in bold in a README.
Existing PRs (there are 14 as of date) need to be processed.
This 1.x discussion took way more time then it should, IMHO. Let's take the
simplest approach and be done with it. We all agreed to not accept anything
except security fixes. Though we all
Volkan,
Infra has stated their preference is to rename the apache/log4j repo. I only
went down the path of creating a new repo because I was under the impression
it would require more infra effort than it apparently does. If it were to stay
I would
imagine it would remain read-only. So all the
Gary, I see that you want to stick to the `logging-log4j1` repo Ralph has
created. What do you propose for the current `log4j` repo? Will they exist
next to each other? I think that will be a really confusing setup. Can we
make a pointer from `log4j` to `logging-log4j` in the README and GitHub
desc
I see good arguments either way. Most important to me is clarity and a
mandated way forward. This would work well!
If you /don’t/ rename it, ideally it’s PRs should be closed, a “look
elsewhere” README added, and then set to “archived” in GitHub settings. As
extra step could also rename it logging
The Log4j1 project is EOL, and assuming that it remains EOL and we are only
doing security patches, I vote in favor of this repo change, to
facilitate making such security patches.
+1
I agree we need to get consensus on the scope of any Log4j1 work.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 8:53 AM Matt Sicker wr
The Log4j1 project is EOL, and assuming that it remains EOL and we are only
doing security patches, I vote in favor of this repo change, to
facilitate making such security patches.
+1
I agree we need to get consensus on the scope of any Log4j1 work.
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 8:55 AM Ralph Goers
w
That will be the next separate discussion and vote.
Ralph
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll still
> need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> --
> Matt Sicker
>
>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Chris
I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll still
need some consensus on the scope of this work.
--
Matt Sicker
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> hi
>
> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
> Most important is tha
hi
at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying to
achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
Cheers,
Christian
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> -1
> We jus
+1
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:55 PM Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Please use the existing apache/log4j repository, and rename it accordingly
>
> Vladimir
+1
Please use the existing apache/log4j repository, and rename it accordingly
Vladimir
These are some good points, Gary.
--
Matt Sicker
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> -1
> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
-1
We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
Even if it is a bit of friction to br
+1
On Thursday, December 23, 2021, 04:45:14 PM EST, Matt Sicker
wrote:
+1
--
Matt Sicker
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:41, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --
> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
> them.
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers
+1
--
Matt Sicker
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:41, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --
> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
> them.
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers
>> w
+1
--
Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
them.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers wrote:
> +1
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
> >
> > In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has recommend
+1
Ralph
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will
> not be able to keep the same
> name as a
+1
-ck
> On Dec 23, 2021, at 16:35, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will
> not be able to keep the same
> name as all
In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
recommended that we can divorce
the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will
not be able to keep the same
name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with “logging-“.
So t
36 matches
Mail list logo
