I would agree directionally with option 1 or option 4. Making changes without pushing binary artifacts to maven central (options 2 and 3) is unlikely to do much good for the types of projects which still use log4j1. Option 5 is a hard no from me, my time is already too constrained, there are better options, and the architecture limits substantive improvements.
-ck On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 11:47, Ralph Goers wrote: > As we all know Log4j 1.x reached end of life in August 2015. Log4j 1.2.17 was > released on May 26, 2012. The last commit was to update the > web site 7 years ago. The changes.xml file shows there were commits up to > sometime in 2012, all of which were performed by Gary Gregory > and Christian Grobmeier who ironically both voted no to opening the repo back > up. > > The point of this history is to point out that the project essentially died > in 2012. We simply acknowledged it in 2015. > > So now we have voted to open the repo. The question then becomes what to do > next and going forward. I see several options: > > 1. Create a README.md that publishes the projects EOL status and do nothing > else. > 2. Create a README.md that says the project is EOL and no further big fixes > or enhancements will be made but 1.2.18 was a special > circumstance. Perform ONLY the following work for 1.2.18: > a. Make the build work with a modern version of Maven. > b. Fix the Java version bug. > c. Fix CVE-2021-4104 (expanded to address all JNDI components) > d. Fix CVE-2019-17571 > The expectation is that the above would address the actual issues and not > just remove classes. > Do NOT perform a release of any kind. > 3. Option 2 but only perform a source release. > 4. Option 2 but perform a full release. > 5. Option 4 but allow development to continue, including bug fixes and > enhancements. > > I personally can see valid reasons to do any of the above. I have my own > opinion on this but I will post that in a reply to this discussion kickoff. > > If you have other proposals feel free to state them. > > This discussion will be followed up by a vote thread if necessary. > > Ralph > > >
