I think this is a good idea - regardless of whether or not we do a release of 1.2, having the git repo easily available for reference is nice.
-Robert Middleton On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 12:18 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think migrating the repo to Git would make an eventual release easier to > accomplish. I’ll note that long ago before Log4j2 switched to Git, I was > using our Subversion repository via git-svn anyways, so that’s also an option > (note that it’s a little finicky as you can’t introduce complicated commit > histories back into subversion). However, if that approach doesn’t work for > performing a release, then I think it would make sense to migrate. We can > always mark the repository as archived on GitHub after the release. > -- > Matt Sicker > > > On Dec 16, 2021, at 07:32, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Let me also point out another aspect of the overall issue for Log4j 1 vs 2: > > Log4j 2 provides a compatibility layer for 1, for the 1.2 API and for some > > configuration files. It is not a 100% drop in replacement, but it could be > > made much better with some work. So, I would prefer that brain power for > > 1.x be applied in this direction, such that we could say update to 2.x and > > pow, it works :-) > > > > Gary > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 08:13 Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I am just voicing my opinion, others can still cause this to pass. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 00:12 Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I thought there was an agreement on releasing 1.2.18 as "networkless" > >>> release. > >>> I think moving to Git (which is a no-op basically), would greatly simplify > >>> that. > >>> > >>>> 1.x has been EOL since 2015 > >>> > >>> There's a demand for fixing CVEs in 1.x > >>> > >>>> with possible confusion as to which version > >>>> 1.x vs 2.x to use in which circumstance > >>> > >>> There are cases when users can't upgrade. For instance, if they use > >>> configuration from code, etc. > >>> > >>>> 1.x has been EOL since 2015, this would only encourage full resurrection > >>> > >>> 1.x live as long as there are individuals that want to maintain it. > >>> As of now, several people suggested patches that make 1.x buildable float > >>> at dev@logging. > >>> Having the same patches as GitHub PR would make it easier for everyone. > >>> > >>> Vladimir > >>> > >> >
