Hm, I started looking at the original patch in more depth:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12773684/ZOOKEEPER-1371-05.patch

is the real root issue 2342 is trying to address the following line change:

-    <dependency org="org.slf4j" name="slf4j-log4j12" rev="1.7.5"
transitive="false"/>
+    <dependency org="org.slf4j" name="slf4j-log4j12" rev="1.7.5"
transitive="false" conf="test->default"/>

Specifically that we changed from runtime to test only for this
dependency? Perhaps we just need to revert that? I see some other
magic happening in the build.xml file that I don't quite understand -
adding a new target and NoLog4j... references.

Raul perhaps you can give more insight since it seems like you worked
on 1371 most recently?

Patrick


On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Chris Nauroth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree.  Even if we don't fully understand every minute technical detail
> of Log4J 2 vs. Log4J 1, I think we've learned enough from my
> work-in-progress patch to declare that a migration is too risky for the
> 3.5 line.  Reverting ZOOKEEPER-1371 (the earlier backwards-incompatible
> logging change) is the better choice for the interest of proceeding with
> 3.5 releases.
>
> --Chris Nauroth
>
>
>
>
> On 3/15/16, 11:23 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I just commented on ZOOKEEPER-2342... not sure I fully understand all
>>the issues to be honest. Given how much we're trying to do in 3.5 it
>>seems like it would be prudent to wait on 1371 until 3.6... IMO. :-)
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Chris Nauroth
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> At this point, I am +1 for a revert of the patch that introduced the
>>> problem (ZOOKEEPER-1371).  We need more time to come up with a migration
>>> path to Log4J 2 that minimizes impact on operators.  That will take
>>>time,
>>> and I'd prefer that we don't hold up 3.5.2-alpha for it.
>>>
>>> --Chris Nauroth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/16, 11:08 AM, "Patrick Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi folks, can we prioritize getting logging fixed? It's causing test
>>>>failures, e.g.:
>>>>https://builds.apache.org/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/2850/artifact/trunk/build/
>>>>tm
>>>>p/zk.log
>>>>
>>>>This is the jira:
>>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2342
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps we should revert the change that caused this in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>Patrick
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to