The main point is, I thought, we agreed to not say/do anything until we have a PLAN. See also Ralph's request to call for a VOTE or wrap up the email with the list of options.
Gary On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 2:08 PM Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I looked through most of the PR (besides the pom changes). Seems good so > far, but I’d like someone else to also verify. > -- > Matt Sicker > > > On Dec 28, 2021, at 12:36, Vladimir Sitnikov < > sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Leo, All, > > > > I've reviewed Leo's changes and filed a PR > > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j1/pull/18 > > CI: https://github.com/vlsi/log4j/runs/4652588702 > > > > I think it is worth separating "build script refactoring" from "bugfix" > > changes. > > > > Does anybody have cycles to review and merge "build script refactoring"? > > > > Notable changes on top of Leo's commits: > > a) I simplified toolchains: the build requires Java <= 1.8 or it requires > > Java 1.8 (exactly) toolchain to be present. > > b) I skipped "test: delete several broken low-quality tests". > > In practice, what Leo calls "broken tests" are tests that need to be > > executed in > > their own JVM (e.g. with special values for log4j.configuration, etc). > > I kept the tests in ignored mode. > > > > Vladimir > >
