And I’ve still been doing most of my work in the master branch lately, so I have nothing outstanding to merge for this release.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 17:07 Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week. > I've merged the contribution, and I'm in the process of adding release > notes and a regression test now. > > -ck > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019, at 02:33, Ralph Goers wrote: > > Carter, > > > > If you are going to fix LOG4J2-2725 you need to do it quickly. I have > been applying patches this evening and will probably do some more tomorrow > but may start the release process tomorrow night or Sunday morning. > > > > Ralph > > > > > On Dec 2, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > If you like it you should really thank Mikael. His initial work on > this gave me the idea how to do it. I wish he was able to contribute more > these days. > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > >> On Dec 2, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Carter Kozak <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks Ralph, > > >> > > >> Your work on log4j1 configuration compatibility looks fantastic! > > >> I'd like to make sure the fix for LOG4J2-2725 goes into this release, > if the PR author doesn't reply in the next day or so I'll take care of it. > There are a couple related places I'd like to test for similar types of > leaks when the asynchronous queue is full. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> -ck > > >> > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, at 11:32, Ralph Goers wrote: > > >>> I have finished all the work on new features I wanted to add for the > next release. The latest feature I added is Log4j 2 will now support Log4j > 1 xml and properties file configurations. I have flagged it as experimental > - it either requires a system property to explicitly enable auto detecting > log4j 1 config files or it requires the log4j.configuration system property > to point to a log4j 1 configuration. Not all appenders are supported. For > example, the Log4j 1 socket appender serialized the log event using Java > serialization. We know that is a security risk and don’t recommend it. The > JDBCAppender is Log4j 1 can’t be mapped to Log4j 2’s JdbcAppender and I > didn’t want to bring in the actual appender code. But I think the support > should be good enough for a lot of use cases. > > >>> > > >>> I will be going through PRs and Jira issues over the next couple of > days to see what low hanging fruit there is. I need to do a release > sometime this week though as I am planning to use some of these features at > work. > > >>> > > >>> Ralph > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
