Hi Gary, On 29.10.2025 12:30, Gary Gregory wrote: > Logj4 is has lost involvement from key contributors and is slowly dying on > the vine IMO due to all of of the hoops and requests it makes on > contributions.
It’s true that Log4j has lost the active involvement of long-time contributors like Matt, Ralph, Remko, and yourself, and that has certainly impacted the project. However, looking at the contribution timeline [1], I’m not convinced that process changes are the main cause. RTC was only introduced around April–May 2025, whereas, with the exception of much-appreciated returns during Log4Shell, many of you had already reduced your activity years earlier. I agree that additional checks (API compatibility validation, SAST tooling, required CI passes, review steps, etc.) can raise the barrier for *occasional* contributors. But honestly, do you feel that removing RTC would significantly change contributor engagement? Would you personally find more time for regular Log4j maintenance today if RTC weren’t in place, on top of everything you’re already doing in Commons? For context, Volkan and I had already been applying RTC discipline to our own contributions long before it became a formal requirement in the project. I don’t believe the process itself is the main problem, it’s the *change* and the need to learn a new workflow from scratch. To give a comparison: I feel a similar kind of frustration when contributing to Commons, where I’m expected to follow traditional conventions like formatting rules and method ordering that aren’t enforced by the build system. Piotr [1] https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/graphs/contributors --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
