Ok, cool. Gary
On Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM, "Demetrios Dimatos" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gary, > We are using Log4j2, I thought to take it to the mail list before a opening > a JIRA. I will open a JIRA for this. > Thank you , > > On Friday, November 11, 2016, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Which version of Log4j are you using? > > > > Bugzilla is no longer used and we no longer support adding to Log4j 1. > > > > For Log4j 2 patches and requests, please use Jira. > > > > Thank you, > > Gary > > > > On Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM, "Demetrios Dimatos" <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Hello All, > > > We would like to hear the communities thoughts on being able to > configure > > > the permissions log files are created with. We don't want to rely on > > UMASK > > > because we have managed services who's process should generate logs > with > > a > > > 644 yet deployed applications by users should default to a 640 because > > the > > > logs may contain sensitive information. > > > > > > We are able to make the modification and set this in the properties > file. > > > Now we are looking to see what the community position would be on > > accepting > > > such a patch, we don't want to be patching our own distribution. > > > > > > I searched all the JIRAs and was not able to find any matching > > requirements > > > recently. All I could find was something dated in 2006: > > > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40407 > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > >
