I don't see the need for the incubator or a new PMC, this is a recipe for confusion for users and contributors: Log4j 1 is a component of the Apache Logging Services project and should remain for Apache to provide the best and consistent *story* for Java logging, at Apache at least.
Things are bad enough when a product or projects offers pluggable logging and I have have to explain facades like Log4j API, Jetty Logging, slf4j, etc, and then implementations of APIs like Log4j Core, Logback, etc, and then explain when and how to use bridges. I wrote the above to make the point that reintroducing log4j 1 as a first class citizen is going to make an even bigger and confusing mess. The only work we should allow is a 1.2.x release that fixes CVEs. We should continue to evangelize migration to 2.x. Gary On Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 09:36 Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > I am sure any number of PMC members would be happy to act as sponsors & > mentors. However, before > you even start you need to know if you have enough people who want to > participate tin the project. The > application form needs to include the list of names of people who will > become the initial members of the project. > > The reason I brought this up is that it seems there are two groups here. > One that wants to get a release > out and then put Log4j 1 back in the coffin and another that wants to > resurrect it. > > Ralph > > > > On Dec 20, 2021, at 7:06 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ron, > > > > There's a need to move log4j 1.x forward, and Ralph Goers suggested > > that the way to go is to re-incubate it, see [1]. > > > > Could you sponsor the project or do you want Incubator to do that? (see > [2]) > > > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mlpb9v15r8qzpc58xnjn99r6tf9yy0p5 > > [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/c2362g4m4m4y1n7zl444ncvhmfb9oy0m > > > > Vladimir > >
