Yes. That was the reasoning behind my -0. I don't think this will destroy our resources, but yes, please do migrate to 2.x asap.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 3:13 PM Eric Pugh <ep...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > Isn’t the goal of Tika 2 to mean that we no longer work on Tika 1? Does the > Tika community have enough developer bandwidth to continue to maintain Tika 1 > while also pushing forward on Tika 2? > > I worry that we’ll fall into that situation where people just end up using > Tika 1 for forever, especially if there are new updates to it that are > happening, which then encourages folks not to move to Tika 2. > > > > > > On Dec 13, 2021, at 2:49 PM, Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Sounds like 2 +1 to my -0. :D I'll start working on this now. > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:09 PM Nicholas DiPiazza > > <nicholas.dipia...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I prefer upgrade to log4j2 > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 12:05 PM Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> All, > >>> I'm currently in the process of building the rc1 for Tika 2.x. On > >>> TIKA-3616, Luís Filipe Nassif asked if we could upgrade log4j to > >>> log4j2 in the 1.x branch. I think we avoided that because it would be > >>> a breaking change(?). There are security vulns in log4j and it hit > >>> EOL > >>> in August 2015. > >>> Should we upgrade the Tika 1.x branch for log4j2? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TIKA-3616?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17457595#comment-17457595 > >>> > > _______________________ > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | > http://www.opensourceconnections.com <http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> > | My Free/Busy <http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed > <https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of > whether attachments are marked as such. >
