Hey Ceki,
Builds and tests were already fixed up, see the most recent outstanding
PRs. Might be faster to cherry-pick rather than to re-do; if you start to
move things around you’ll have a hard time merging anything in.
Cheers,
Leo
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 19:39, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Hello
Hey,
Happy new year everyone!
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion
> thread.
I'm here. I did mention in a couple mails I'd be away. Real life happens :).
I think I made clear what I am interested in through
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
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 15:43, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> I didn't see the PRs though - are they still local on your box?
On the wrong repo and lacking a target branch:
https://github.com/apache/log4j/pull/17
https://github.com/apache/log4j/pull/16
From
https://github.com/lsimons/log4j
For
Thanks for chipping in Christian! Your detailed notes from back then helped
a ton figure basic things out.
What I did for the PRs I made is to
* also check in the 32 bit 1.2.17 dll from the binary release, like was
already done for 64 bit,
* have the maven build not auto-attempt to build it,
*
Hey,
I am interested in legacy/vintage core enterprise systems deep inside large
enterprises and governments, where source code changes are out of the
question, that have lit up yellow in security/compliance dashboards due to
the old CVE against log4j 1.2 for years, that now light up as orange
think
> maven 3 runs on Java 6.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 5:11 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 12:39, Ralph Goers
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It is still the middle of the night for me so I won’t do anything for
> >>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 12:39, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> It is still the middle of the night for me so I won’t do anything for
> several hours.
Whoa, best get some rest! :)
I will create the branch but I am curious about the rest. When I ran the
> build last night it ran through a bunch of unit
(On mobile)
Cool.
First I suggest to make a new branch from 1.2.17. Trunk has various stuff
that’s backwards incompatible. Something like
git checkout -b main v1_0_2_17
git push -u main
Then go into GitHub settings and make main the default branch.
So then people make PRs against that.
Think
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 18:48, Gary Gregory wrote:
> …
> I wonder what logback actually means by "Temporarily removed DB support for
> security reasons.", did they remove public or protected code? Well we have
> enough to deal with here without worrying about that.
Yeah they deleted DBAppender.
(On mobile, excuse typos/top post)
+1. My interest is in staying here, work together, make a security release
as one community (and I probably will be gone when security is no longer a
topic), that is as good as possible, out soon(tm). I won’t object to but
also won’t join something “new” (feel
Hey folks,
So as requested I've made a conservative fully binary compatible version of
all the build changes and security fixes, patches are on a new pull request
at
https://github.com/apache/log4j/pull/17
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:30 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> Again, you cannot break
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 5:32 PM Leo Simons wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:34 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> If you delete anything that is public or protected, you will break
>> binary compatibility, and that's a no-go IMO.
>
>
> Agree. I hope we can get cli
Hey,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:52 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Similarly to set up git(hub) requires a PMC member.
> >Hopefully the [VOTE] on that is revisited and then someone sets it up.
>
> Would you please express your opinion on "[VOTE] Move log4j 1.x from
+1 from me.
I imagine it should make it easier to make the security release when setup
for 1.2 is more similar to 2.x.
That should mean people who are good at releasing 2.x have an easy time
releasing 1.2.18.
I think we can (and should) do this in such a way that 1.2 EOL status
becomes *more*
Hey Gary,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:34 PM Gary Gregory wrote:
> If you delete anything that is public or protected, you will break
> binary compatibility, and that's a no-go IMO.
Agree. I hope we can get clirr (or something like it) back to work, to
prove binary compatibility.
Perhaps with
is needed. OTOH, if you want to resurrect the project then this really
> should go through
> the ASF incubator with the Logging Services project as the sponsor.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 17, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > Progress t
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 6:24 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Note removing the classes would break API compatibility
>
> I do not think keeping the class with "every method throws" is much better
> than just removing the class.
>
Agreed! I also don't want to do
Hey,
Progress today
As mentioned I made a draft PR for the branch I'm working on:
https://github.com/apache/log4j/pull/16
My main progress today was to get the unit test suite working reliably
(dozens of tests were disabled because they had flaky results), and then to
get build and
Hi Tony,
Glad you want to help. The original Log4J community left, so to get
anything done we need some new contributors!
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:19 PM Homer, Tony wrote:
> There has been some discussion about releasing a security update for log4j
> 1.x (1.2.18, perhaps), both here and on
>
Hey Gary,
Thanks for your thoughts.
TL;DR: I actually share your preference! But: how? Also, progress notes.
In a "normal" situation I really think that the 99% drop in replacement
that is already there is plenty.
Especially from an ASF perspective where our primary deliverable is source
code
the logging project and support Log4j 1 we do
> not want to give the impression that
> > > it is being supported.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 15, 2021, at 10:14 AM, Leo Simons
> wrote:
> > > >
&g
Hey folks,
First, thanks for all the hard work on 2.x, especially these last couple of
weeks!
Please take care of yourself and be kind to yourself :)
Obviously 2.x should get full focus from all that can productively
contribute to it.
I do agree with Vladimir about giving 1.x a little attention.
23 matches
Mail list logo
