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 <[email protected]> > 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]
