Great, Thank you, Tim!
Em qua., 15 de dez. de 2021 às 16:50, Tim Allison
escreveu:
> I've merged Lewis's edits to the README and added the EOL. Let's do
> what both Konstantin and Nick recommend: README, notifications to
> user/dev lists x months out and include EOL in all release messages?
>
I've merged Lewis's edits to the README and added the EOL. Let's do
what both Konstantin and Nick recommend: README, notifications to
user/dev lists x months out and include EOL in all release messages?
Please let me know/edit the README if there are other improvements we
should make.
Thank
My +1 to EOL on September 30, 2022 with effective backport submission
freeze 3 months before that.
I think it would be better if we mention the EOL timeline at least in 3
places: in each release announcement, in README and on the site (on the
main page or in release news articles). Different
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021, Tim Allison wrote:
Sounds good, Nick. Unless there are objections, I'll add an EOL
September 30, 2022 for the 1.x branch on our github README and maybe our
site somewhere?
Maybe just mention it in the news section at the end any 1.x fix releases?
Nick
Sounds good, Nick. Unless there are objections, I'll add an EOL
September 30, 2022 for the 1.x branch on our github README and maybe
our site somewhere?
>I'm not keen on adding new features to 1.x, as that'll only encourage
people to stick on the old one, but I wouldn't go as far as -1'ing other
On Wed, 15 Dec 2021, Tim Allison wrote:
I think we should keep the 1.x branch open for security upgrades for a
bit...middle of next year? I have _not_ been adding new features or
even some bug fixes to 1.x, and I encourage people to migrate to 2.x.
We've seen quite a few queries from people
It didn't take too long, and as long as the original author of the
metrics stuff in tika-server isn't too concerned about breaking
changes, let's hope for the best. Log4j 1.x is so far beyond its EOL,
it is embarrassing.
I think we should keep the 1.x branch open for security upgrades for a
Am 13.12.2021 um 19:05 schrieb Tim Allison:
All,
I'm currently in the process of building the rc1 for Tika 2.x. On
TIKA-3616, Luís Filipe Nassif asked if we could upgrade log4j to
log4j2 in the 1.x branch. I think we avoided that because it would be
a breaking change(?). There are security
Hi, folks.
I'm +1 to both updating to log4j2 or logback and supporting security
updates for some time if we can but encourage migration to 2.2+ ASAP. Maybe
we should publish some EOL date in the 2.2.0 announcement if we didn't
before. It should give both time scope for migration and limit
Sorry about the additional work, Tim. I thought upgrading from log4j-1.x to
2.x on Tika-1.x maybe could not be that hard and didn't know about breaking
changes.
Related to Eric's email, would we support Tika-1.x security updates for
some while (that was my intent with the proposal above)? Was
Yes. That was the reasoning behind my -0. I don't think this will
destroy our resources, but yes, please do migrate to 2.x asap.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 3:13 PM Eric Pugh
wrote:
>
> Isn’t the goal of Tika 2 to mean that we no longer work on Tika 1? Does the
> Tika community have enough
Isn’t the goal of Tika 2 to mean that we no longer work on Tika 1? Does the
Tika community have enough developer bandwidth to continue to maintain Tika 1
while also pushing forward on Tika 2?
I worry that we’ll fall into that situation where people just end up using Tika
1 for forever,
Sounds like 2 +1 to my -0. :D I'll start working on this now.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Nicholas DiPiazza
wrote:
>
> I prefer upgrade to log4j2
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 12:05 PM Tim Allison wrote:
>
> > All,
> > I'm currently in the process of building the rc1 for Tika 2.x. On
> >
I prefer upgrade to log4j2
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 12:05 PM Tim Allison wrote:
> All,
> I'm currently in the process of building the rc1 for Tika 2.x. On
> TIKA-3616, Luís Filipe Nassif asked if we could upgrade log4j to
> log4j2 in the 1.x branch. I think we avoided that because it would be
>
All,
I'm currently in the process of building the rc1 for Tika 2.x. On
TIKA-3616, Luís Filipe Nassif asked if we could upgrade log4j to
log4j2 in the 1.x branch. I think we avoided that because it would be
a breaking change(?). There are security vulns in log4j and it hit
EOL
in August 2015.
15 matches
Mail list logo
