Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Gary Gregory]

Excellent info, thank you Ralph!

Gary

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:06 PM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> As this falls into a “procedural issue” from
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I used
>
> Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> unless otherwise stated. That is, if there
> are more favourable votes than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered
> to have passed -- regardless of the
> number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too small
> to be representative of a community
> consensus, the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the
> description of lazy consensus for a modifying
> factor.)
>
> I cut the vote off because I specifically sent an email to the private
> list asking people to vote last night and most
> of those who hadn’t voted haven’t haven’t participated in PMC activities
> in quite a while or, in one case, is focused
> primarily on a non-Java project.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 24, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
> >
> > Vladimir: It is traditional for the person who called the VOTE to tally
> the
> > VOTE which was only started 19 hours ago. Is 19 hours the way you
> normally
> > run VOTE threads at JMeter? Please do not attempt to cut VOTEs short to
> > force your agenda. People change their minds sometimes.
> >
> > PMC: The repo VOTE thread did not specify the rules for -1/+1: Is a -1 a
> > VETO or does the VOTE follow RELEASE rules? This is obviously not a
> RELEASE
> > though. It's also not a LAZY CONSENSUS VOTE. Sorry to be pedantic, but
> what
> > kind of Apache voting [1] applies to the VOTE thread?
> >
> > Gary
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:00 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
> > sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
> >>
> >> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC
> members
> >> of Logging as per
> >> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
> >>
> >> So the updated summary is
> >>
> >> Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
> >> Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
> >> Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
> >> A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
> >> Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov
> >>
> >> Vladimir
> >>
>
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

As this falls into a “procedural issue” from 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html I used 

Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless 
otherwise stated. That is, if there 
are more favourable votes than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to 
have passed -- regardless of the 
number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too small to be 
representative of a community 
consensus, the issue is typically not pursued. However, see the description of 
lazy consensus for a modifying 
factor.)

I cut the vote off because I specifically sent an email to the private list 
asking people to vote last night and most 
of those who hadn’t voted haven’t haven’t participated in PMC activities in 
quite a while or, in one case, is focused 
primarily on a non-Java project.

Ralph

> On Dec 24, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> 
> Vladimir: It is traditional for the person who called the VOTE to tally the
> VOTE which was only started 19 hours ago. Is 19 hours the way you normally
> run VOTE threads at JMeter? Please do not attempt to cut VOTEs short to
> force your agenda. People change their minds sometimes.
> 
> PMC: The repo VOTE thread did not specify the rules for -1/+1: Is a -1 a
> VETO or does the VOTE follow RELEASE rules? This is obviously not a RELEASE
> though. It's also not a LAZY CONSENSUS VOTE. Sorry to be pedantic, but what
> kind of Apache voting [1] applies to the VOTE thread?
> 
> Gary
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:00 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
>> 
>> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
>> of Logging as per
>> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
>> 
>> So the updated summary is
>> 
>> Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
>> Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
>> Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
>> A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
>> Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov
>> 
>> Vladimir
>> 

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[sebb]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 17:57, Vladimir Sitnikov
 wrote:
>
> 1) I stand corrected, I misinterpreted the phonebook (I watched on bold
> records only), so your calculation was correct. Sorry for that.

Entries in bold are ASF members.

> > which was only started 19 hours ago
>
> "vote count != consensus", and the key we seek is consensus (e.g.
> agreement).
> For instance, if the tally is like +5 -2, then, it is up to somebody (vote
> starter?)
> to decide if there's an agreement indeed.
>
> >VOTE threads at JMeter
>
> (un)fortunately, there are only a few active committers/PMCs, so we just
> vote fast, and we know no new votes would appear.
>
> >voting [1] applies to the VOTE thread?
>
> I guess it is up to the one who starts the thread.
> If you mention "lazy consensus", it becomes lazy.
> If you mention "votes are open for 365 days", then it becomes 365 day vote
> :)
>
> Vladimir

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

>Last I recalled I was a PMC member of this group.
>Probably check the link again you sent

Sorry for that, I misinterpreted the data (I watched bold records only for
unknown reasons).
The initial calculation by Ralph was right.

Vladimir

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

1) I stand corrected, I misinterpreted the phonebook (I watched on bold
records only), so your calculation was correct. Sorry for that.

> which was only started 19 hours ago

"vote count != consensus", and the key we seek is consensus (e.g.
agreement).
For instance, if the tally is like +5 -2, then, it is up to somebody (vote
starter?)
to decide if there's an agreement indeed.

>VOTE threads at JMeter

(un)fortunately, there are only a few active committers/PMCs, so we just
vote fast, and we know no new votes would appear.

>voting [1] applies to the VOTE thread?

I guess it is up to the one who starts the thread.
If you mention "lazy consensus", it becomes lazy.
If you mention "votes are open for 365 days", then it becomes 365 day vote
:)

Vladimir

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[sebb]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 17:03, Carter Kozak  wrote:
>
> You can find the PMC list here: 
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=logging

AFAIK that uses the LDAP group.

The official list is derived from committee-info.txt as shown by Whimsy:
https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/logging

This should normally be the same, but there are sometimes differences
(usually accidental, but sometimes deliberate).

> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 11:59, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
> >
> > AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> > of Logging as per
> > https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
> >
> > So the updated summary is
> >
> > Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
> > Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
> > Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
> > A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
> > Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov
> >
> > Vladimir
> >

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Christian Grobmeier]

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 17:59, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
>
> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> of Logging as per
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
>
> So the updated summary is
>
> Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
> Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
> Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
> A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
> Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov

Last I recalled I was a PMC member of this group.
Probably check the link again you sent. 

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Gary Gregory]

Vladimir: It is traditional for the person who called the VOTE to tally the
VOTE which was only started 19 hours ago. Is 19 hours the way you normally
run VOTE threads at JMeter? Please do not attempt to cut VOTEs short to
force your agenda. People change their minds sometimes.

PMC: The repo VOTE thread did not specify the rules for -1/+1: Is a -1 a
VETO or does the VOTE follow RELEASE rules? This is obviously not a RELEASE
though. It's also not a LAZY CONSENSUS VOTE. Sorry to be pedantic, but what
kind of Apache voting [1] applies to the VOTE thread?

Gary
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html


On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:00 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
>
> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> of Logging as per
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
>
> So the updated summary is
>
> Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
> Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
> Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
> A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
> Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov
>
> Vladimir
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Carter Kozak]

You can find the PMC list here: 
https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?pmc=logging

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 11:59, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.
> 
> AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
> of Logging as per
> https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging
> 
> So the updated summary is
> 
> Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
> Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
> Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
> A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
> Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov
> 
> Vladimir
> 

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

AFAIK only PMC members have binding votes.

AFAIK Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton, and Volkan Yazici are not PMC members
of Logging as per
https://people.apache.org/phonebook.html?project=logging

So the updated summary is

Binding +1 votes were received from Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, Matt
Sicker, Ron Grabowski, and Remko Popma
Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
A non-binding +1 vote was received from Carter Kozak, Robert Middleton,
Volkan Yazici, Vladimir Sitnikov

Vladimir

[RESULT][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

I am closing this vote as I believe all PMC members who desire to vote on this 
have done so. 

The vote to perform the following steps passes:

1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.

Binding +1 votes were received from Carter Kozak, Ralph Goers, Dominik Psenner, 
Matt Sicker, Ron Grabowski, Robert Middleton, Remko Popma, and Volkan Yazici
Binding -1 votes were received from Gary Gregory and Christian Grobmeier
A non-binding +1 vote was received from Vladimir Sitnikov 

I will update https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 
 accordingly.

Ralph

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Christian Grobmeier]

Hi Vladimir,

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 13:51, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> Dominik,
>
> Are you willing to add committers and PMC members to the log4j 1.x
> community?

if we add people, then we add it to the logging project. There is no separate 
log4j/log4php whatever community. We are one community.

> If you forbid issues and pull requests, then it goes against the idea of
> adding new commuters and PMC members for 1.x.

That's why I think we should have voted on the goal first, and then discuss 
technical details.
At the moment I think the PMC is pretty much 1.x stays EOL at this point of 
time.

> How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
> forbid pull requests, forbid non-CVE changes, and so on?
>
> How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
> want to mention EOL all over the place?

It was already mentioned 2015. You can send patches, become a committer to ASF 
Logging and when everybody sees there is real interest and real developer 
capacity behind this idea, then maybe we as community decide to make a separate 
product.

Please use another email thread than the vote thread to discuss these things 
anyway, it makes it harder to count the votes.

Thank you.

Christian

> I would rather use "log4j 1.x is feature complete, so no new features are
> expected to appear"
> On the other hand, it should be perfectly fine to add new tests, fix
> security issues,
> fix other issues (e.g. NPEs).
>
> Vladimir

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Gary Gregory]

Hi Volkan,
Nothing is ideal or great about a Log4j1 revival IMO. I still see more cons
than pros. I understand that some people choose to stay stuck on it despite
the 2015 EOL marker. I wish I'd joined that debate club in high school so I
could better articulate my arguments for pulling these folks of the Log4j 1
doldrums.

So, speaking of not ideal, we might consider EOL'ing the old repo itself
and saying you have x months to move your stuff, the component is EOL after
all and will remain so even though we are doing a CVE+ release (CVE + the
2.x kind of changes that are not 1.x CVEs) from the new repo. A new repo
will make people think about what PRs matter and what is throwaway or just
cruft. It might make things less confusing for GitHub visitors that find a
new repo that is not full of old stuff that will never come to life, EOL
after all.

It's not ideal but neither is using dead EOL software.

Gary

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 03:21 Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:

> Gary, I see that you want to stick to the `logging-log4j1` repo Ralph has
> created. What do you propose for the current `log4j` repo? Will they exist
> next to each other? I think that will be a really confusing setup. Can we
> make a pointer from `log4j` to `logging-log4j` in the README and GitHub
> description?
>
> I agree with stating the goal clearly.
>
> I don't think we will be able to avoid PRs contributing random stuff to
> Log4j. Once we make a 1.2.18 release, Pandora's box will be open. The only
> thing we can do from then on is to share the goal statement with the
> incoming PRs and simply reject them.
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:50 PM Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
>
> > -1
> > We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> > stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> > I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
> > tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
> > Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
> > this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> > The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
> > our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> > Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> > impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
> > feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
> >
> > I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal
> or
> > charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> > usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> > should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so
> we
> > can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has
> > > recommended that we can divorce
> > > the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However,
> it
> > > will not be able to keep the same
> > > name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> > > “logging-“.
> > >
> > > So this vote is to:
> > > 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> > > 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> > > 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> > > 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> > > 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> > >
> > > While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> > > vote so the result will separate
> > > binding from non-binding votes.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> > mostly
> > > discussion. If you want to discuss
> > > this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Dominik Psenner]

As PMC member I voted to make the source code available in a git
repository. The git repository and the mailing list are all the tools
needed to prepare contributions and fixes. It allows for easy forking and
contributions to prosper. I would love to see this cause the community to
grow. It would be awesome to see more committers and add additional PMC
members.

As of now, log4j1 is still EOL. By examining future contributions we can
have a discussion about the EOL status in the future.

Lets take one step at a time! To me it is premature to open a public issue
tracker or accepting pull requests from the public. Someone would have to
review them and we would allow allocation of resources in favor of loosing
other opportunities. As said, I voted +1 to provide the tools needed to let
contributors work on contributions.

I encourage you to end the discussions now and to start working on
contributions instead.

--
Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
them.

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, 13:51 Vladimir Sitnikov 
wrote:

> Dominik,
>
> Are you willing to add committers and PMC members to the log4j 1.x
> community?
>
> If you forbid issues and pull requests, then it goes against the idea of
> adding new commuters and PMC members for 1.x.
>
> How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
> forbid pull requests, forbid non-CVE changes, and so on?
>
> How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
> want to mention EOL all over the place?
>
> I would rather use "log4j 1.x is feature complete, so no new features are
> expected to appear"
> On the other hand, it should be perfectly fine to add new tests, fix
> security issues,
> fix other issues (e.g. NPEs).
>
> Vladimir
>

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

Dominik,

Are you willing to add committers and PMC members to the log4j 1.x
community?

If you forbid issues and pull requests, then it goes against the idea of
adding new commuters and PMC members for 1.x.

How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
forbid pull requests, forbid non-CVE changes, and so on?

How do you expect to nominate committers and PMC members if you
want to mention EOL all over the place?

I would rather use "log4j 1.x is feature complete, so no new features are
expected to appear"
On the other hand, it should be perfectly fine to add new tests, fix
security issues,
fix other issues (e.g. NPEs).

Vladimir

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Volkan Yazıcı]

+1

Goal needs to be stated in bold in a README.
Existing PRs (there are 14 as of date) need to be processed.

This 1.x discussion took way more time then it should, IMHO. Let's take the
simplest approach and be done with it. We all agreed to not accept anything
except security fixes. Though we all know there will be incoming PRs, which
we can all do is to reject after pointing to our goal statement.

I am not keen to keep two repos of the same project around. Making a 1.x
release is already confusing enough, having multiple repos will make things
worse.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:35 PM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
> will not be able to keep the same
> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> “logging-“.
>
> So this vote is to:
> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>
> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> vote so the result will separate
> binding from non-binding votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
> discussion. If you want to discuss
> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

Volkan,

Infra has stated their preference is to rename the apache/log4j repo. I only 
went down the path of creating a new repo because I was under the impression 
it would require more infra effort than it apparently does. If it were to stay 
I would 
imagine it would remain read-only. So all the PRs there would be useless, 
although as you point out they may be anyway.

This vote is only about the repo. We will need another discussion and vote 
about 
what the PMC is OK with once the repo is available.

Ralph



> On Dec 24, 2021, at 1:20 AM, Volkan Yazıcı  wrote:
> 
> Gary, I see that you want to stick to the `logging-log4j1` repo Ralph has
> created. What do you propose for the current `log4j` repo? Will they exist
> next to each other? I think that will be a really confusing setup. Can we
> make a pointer from `log4j` to `logging-log4j` in the README and GitHub
> description?
> 
> I agree with stating the goal clearly.
> 
> I don't think we will be able to avoid PRs contributing random stuff to
> Log4j. Once we make a 1.2.18 release, Pandora's box will be open. The only
> thing we can do from then on is to share the goal statement with the
> incoming PRs and simply reject them.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:50 PM Gary Gregory 
> wrote:
> 
>> -1
>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>> 
>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
>>> recommended that we can divorce
>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
>>> will not be able to keep the same
>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>>> “logging-“.
>>> 
>>> So this vote is to:
>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>> 
>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>>> vote so the result will separate
>>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
>> mostly
>>> discussion. If you want to discuss
>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>> 

[DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Volkan Yazıcı]

Gary, I see that you want to stick to the `logging-log4j1` repo Ralph has
created. What do you propose for the current `log4j` repo? Will they exist
next to each other? I think that will be a really confusing setup. Can we
make a pointer from `log4j` to `logging-log4j` in the README and GitHub
description?

I agree with stating the goal clearly.

I don't think we will be able to avoid PRs contributing random stuff to
Log4j. Once we make a 1.2.18 release, Pandora's box will be open. The only
thing we can do from then on is to share the goal statement with the
incoming PRs and simply reject them.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:50 PM Gary Gregory 
wrote:

> -1
> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>
> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
> > In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> > recommended that we can divorce
> > the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
> > will not be able to keep the same
> > name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> > “logging-“.
> >
> > So this vote is to:
> > 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> > 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> > 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> > 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> > 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> >
> > While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> > vote so the result will separate
> > binding from non-binding votes.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> mostly
> > discussion. If you want to discuss
> > this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Leo Simons]

I see good arguments either way. Most important to me is clarity and a
mandated way forward. This would work well!

If you /don’t/ rename it, ideally it’s PRs should be closed, a “look
elsewhere” README added, and then set to “archived” in GitHub settings. As
extra step could also rename it logging-log4j1-archived.

Best don’t delete it outright: as the source of dozens of other forks that
could confuse otherwise happy forkers.

Cheers,

Leo

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 22:35, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
> will not be able to keep the same
> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> “logging-“.
>
> So this vote is to:
> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>
> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> vote so the result will separate
> binding from non-binding votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
> discussion. If you want to discuss
> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Remko Popma]

The Log4j1 project is EOL, and assuming that it remains EOL and we are only
doing security patches, I vote in favor of this repo change, to
facilitate making such security patches.
+1

I agree we need to get consensus on the scope of any Log4j1 work.

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 8:53 AM Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll
> still need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> --
> Matt Sicker
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier 
> wrote:
> >
> > hi
> >
> > at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
> > Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying
> to achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Christian
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >> -1
> >> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> >> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> >> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
> >> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
> >> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
> >> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> >> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE
> on
> >> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> >> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> >> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
> >> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
> >>
> >> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated
> goal or
> >> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> >> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> >> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so
> we
> >> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has
> >>> recommended that we can divorce
> >>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However,
> it
> >>> will not be able to keep the same
> >>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> >>> “logging-“.
> >>>
> >>> So this vote is to:
> >>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> >>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> >>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> >>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> >>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> >>>
> >>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> >>> vote so the result will separate
> >>> binding from non-binding votes.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> mostly
> >>> discussion. If you want to discuss
> >>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Remko Popma]

The Log4j1 project is EOL, and assuming that it remains EOL and we are only
doing security patches, I vote in favor of this repo change, to
facilitate making such security patches.
+1

I agree we need to get consensus on the scope of any Log4j1 work.


On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 8:55 AM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> That will be the next separate discussion and vote.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll
> still need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> > --
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> >> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi
> >>
> >> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
> >> Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying
> to achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Christian
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>> -1
> >>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it,
> let's
> >>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> >>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates
> a
> >>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after
> all.
> >>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old
> repo,
> >>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> >>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE
> on
> >>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> >>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> >>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix
> and
> >>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
> >>>
> >>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated
> goal or
> >>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> >>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> >>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md
> so we
> >>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers <
> ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has
>  recommended that we can divorce
>  the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j.
> However, it
>  will not be able to keep the same
>  name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>  “logging-“.
> 
>  So this vote is to:
>  1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>  2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>  3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>  4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>  5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> 
>  While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>  vote so the result will separate
>  binding from non-binding votes.
> 
>  Ralph
> 
>  PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> mostly
>  discussion. If you want to discuss
>  this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

That will be the next separate discussion and vote.

Ralph

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Matt Sicker  wrote:
> 
> I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll still 
> need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> --
> Matt Sicker
> 
>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
>> 
>> hi
>> 
>> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
>> Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying to 
>> achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> -1
>>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
>>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
>>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
>>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
>>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
>>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
>>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
>>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
>>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
>>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
>>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>>> 
>>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
>>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
>>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
>>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
>>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
 recommended that we can divorce
 the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
 will not be able to keep the same
 name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
 “logging-“.
 
 So this vote is to:
 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
 
 While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
 vote so the result will separate
 binding from non-binding votes.
 
 Ralph
 
 PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
 discussion. If you want to discuss
 this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Matt Sicker]

I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll still 
need some consensus on the scope of this work.
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier  wrote:
> 
> hi
> 
> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
> Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying to 
> achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
> 
> Cheers,
> Christian
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> -1
>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>> 
>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>> 
>> Gary
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
>>> recommended that we can divorce
>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
>>> will not be able to keep the same
>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>>> “logging-“.
>>> 
>>> So this vote is to:
>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>> 
>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>>> vote so the result will separate
>>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
>>> discussion. If you want to discuss
>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Christian Grobmeier]

hi

at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying to 
achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.

Cheers,
Christian


On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> -1
> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>
> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
>
>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
>> recommended that we can divorce
>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
>> will not be able to keep the same
>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>> “logging-“.
>>
>> So this vote is to:
>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>
>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>> vote so the result will separate
>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
>> discussion. If you want to discuss
>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Robert Middleton]

+1


On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:55 PM Vladimir Sitnikov
 wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Please use the existing apache/log4j repository, and rename it accordingly
>
> Vladimir

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Vladimir Sitnikov]

+1

Please use the existing apache/log4j repository, and rename it accordingly

Vladimir

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Matt Sicker]

These are some good points, Gary.
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:50, Gary Gregory  wrote:
> 
> -1
> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
> 
> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> 
>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
>> recommended that we can divorce
>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
>> will not be able to keep the same
>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>> “logging-“.
>> 
>> So this vote is to:
>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>> 
>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>> vote so the result will separate
>> binding from non-binding votes.
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
>> discussion. If you want to discuss
>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Gary Gregory]

-1
We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.

I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.

Gary

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
> will not be able to keep the same
> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> “logging-“.
>
> So this vote is to:
> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>
> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> vote so the result will separate
> binding from non-binding votes.
>
> Ralph
>
> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
> discussion. If you want to discuss
> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ron Grabowski]

 +1
On Thursday, December 23, 2021, 04:45:14 PM EST, Matt Sicker 
 wrote:  
 
 +1
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:41, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> --
> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
> them.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
>> has recommended that we can divorce
>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However,
>> it will not be able to keep the same
>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>> “logging-“.
>>> 
>>> So this vote is to:
>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>> 
>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>> vote so the result will separate
>>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
>> mostly discussion. If you want to discuss
>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>> 
>> 

  

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Matt Sicker]

+1
--
Matt Sicker

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 15:41, Dominik Psenner  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> --
> Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
> them.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
>> has recommended that we can divorce
>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However,
>> it will not be able to keep the same
>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>> “logging-“.
>>> 
>>> So this vote is to:
>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>> 
>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>> vote so the result will separate
>>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
>> mostly discussion. If you want to discuss
>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Dominik Psenner]

+1

--
Sent from my phone. Typos are a kind gift to anyone who happens to find
them.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, 22:38 Ralph Goers  wrote:

> +1
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> >
> > In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has recommended that we can divorce
> > the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However,
> it will not be able to keep the same
> > name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> “logging-“.
> >
> > So this vote is to:
> > 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> > 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> > 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> > 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> > 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> >
> > While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> vote so the result will separate
> > binding from non-binding votes.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> mostly discussion. If you want to discuss
> > this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

+1

Ralph

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has 
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will 
> not be able to keep the same 
> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with “logging-“.
> 
> So this vote is to:
> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> 
> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this vote 
> so the result will separate 
> binding from non-binding votes.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly 
> discussion. If you want to discuss 
> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

Re: [VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Carter Kozak]

+1

-ck

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 16:35, Ralph Goers  wrote:
> 
> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has 
> recommended that we can divorce
> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will 
> not be able to keep the same 
> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with “logging-“.
> 
> So this vote is to:
> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> 
> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this vote 
> so the result will separate 
> binding from non-binding votes.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly 
> discussion. If you want to discuss 
> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]

[VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Ralph Goers]

In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has 
recommended that we can divorce
the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it will 
not be able to keep the same 
name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with “logging-“.

So this vote is to:
1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.

While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this vote so 
the result will separate 
binding from non-binding votes.

Ralph

PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly 
discussion. If you want to discuss 
this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]