> Sorry to be pedantic, but what Apache rules apply to the previous > DISCUSS/VOTE thread?
There's no need to apologize, the rules exist for a reason! > It should be telling, not ironic, that the last two contributors to Log4j 1 > that are still here voted -1 This is a great point which I hadn't realized myself. For what it's worth, I would consider _my_ vote with much less weight than those who have actually contributed to and maintained the log4j-1 project. -ck On Fri, Dec 24, 2021, at 12:05, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 11:47 AM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > 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. > > > Note that the repo DISCUSS/VOTE thread seemed informal because it did > specify the rules for -1/+1: Is a -1 a VETO or does the VOTE follow RELEASE > rules? This is obviously not a RELEASE though. Sorry to be pedantic, but > what Apache rules apply to the previous DISCUSS/VOTE thread? > > It should be telling, not ironic, that the last two contributors to Log4j 1 > that are still here voted -1, but, if, big if, we (1) move fw the repo and > (2) then w a release... I'll opine ;-) > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > What happens to the new repo Ralph created, will it just be deleted? > > > > > > 1. Create a README.md that publishes the projects EOL status and do > > nothing else. > > > Fine with me. > > > > 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. > > > If we move fw w the repo, this seems like a no-brainer requirement IMO. > > > > b. Fix the Java version bug. > > > Not sure what that one is, but If we move fw w the repo, OK. > > c. Fix CVE-2021-4104 (expanded to address all JNDI components) > > > If we move fw w the repo, OK > > > > d. Fix CVE-2019-17571 > > The expectation is that the above would address the actual issues and > > not just remove classes. > > > If we move fw w the repo, OK. > > > > 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. > > > Seems like the better solution b/w 3 and 4, a source only feels like a > tease if not worse. > > > > 5. Option 4 but allow development to continue, including bug fixes and > > enhancements. > > > -1 there. 1.x remains EOL. Focus on 1.2 bridge code in 2.x. > > Thank you Ralph but putting this list together! :-) > Gary > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >
