Oh, and make sure you base your patch on the git master branch. Gary
On Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM, "Gary Gregory" <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, cool. > > Gary > > On Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM, "Demetrios Dimatos" <dima...@gmail.com> 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 <garydgreg...@gmail.com> >> 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" <dima...@gmail.com >> > <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. >> > > >> > >> >
