Volkan,

Thank you very much!

Tim

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:55 AM Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Took some time, but managed to get it merged (with succeeding tests) into
> master.
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:39 PM Tim Perry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ideally, yes, but I haven't done anything to test it on master yet. I was
> > expecting to send a separate pull request for that. If you can merge it,
> > please do. If you want me to submit a PR, please let me know.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:31 AM Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Resolved merge conflicts and rebased onto release-2.x branch. Is this
> > also
> > > supposed to be applied to master too?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Go ahead, Volkan. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 11:46, Volkan Yazıcı <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt, if you approve the changes, I can also merge them in a couple
> > of
> > > > > hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, 17:44 Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I'll make sure that it is merged in time for that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 10:43, Tim Perry <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it possible to merge PR 463 for LOG4J-2624 and LOG4J-1606
> for
> > > > 2.14.1?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:09 AM Volkan Yazıcı <
> > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The LOG4J2-2973 fix is there for both master and release-2.x
> > > > branches –
> > > > > > > > thanks to Fabio Ricchiuti!
> > > > > > > > I will really appreciate it if somebody can get the 2.14.1
> out
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > door.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:02 PM Volkan Yazıcı <
> > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For 2.14.1, would you wait for the resolution of
> LOG4J2-2973
> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-2973>,
> please?
> > > > > > > > > I am helping Fabio Ricchiuti to put the fix
> > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/462> into
> its
> > > > last
> > > > > > shape.
> > > > > > > > > Once it lands on master, I will cherry-pick it to
> release-2.x
> > > > too.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 5:23 PM Volkan Yazıcı <
> > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hello,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Shall we release 2.14.1? I really want to get the next
> > release
> > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> door in particular for the following changes:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2972 Refactor AsyncAppender and AppenderControl for
> > > > handling
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> Throwables.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2985 Add eventTemplateRootObjectKey parameter to
> > > > > > > > >> JsonTemplateLayout.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2962 Enrich "map" resolver by unifying its backend
> > with
> > > > "mdc"
> > > > > > > > >> resolver.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2961 Fix reading of JsonTemplateLayout event
> > additional
> > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > >> from config.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2916 Avoid redundant Kafka producer instantiation
> > > causing
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > >> leaks.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2967 Fix JsonTemplateLayout index based parameter
> > > > resolution
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> messages contain too few parameters.
> > > > > > > > >> LOG4J2-2976 JdbcAppender composes an incorrect INSERT
> > > statement
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> ColumnMapping element.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> @Ralph, given you are the (unofficial?) release manager,
> > what
> > > > do you
> > > > > > > > >> think? Can we have an ETA for the release?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Kind regards.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to