> On Dec 21, 2021, at 10:24 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Matt>Nobody in the Logging PMC is blocking a release here.
>
> Matt, thanks for the reply, however, it is false :(
> I see you are positive, however, many more replies were quite negative.
>
> Ralph Goers says: "We’ve stated several times that we don’t think
> resurrecting Log4j 1.x permanently is a good idea."
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/vz80p3v78xgposon3pcxbnb9729snnxt
>
> Gary Gregory says: "As I've stated before, IF there is a 1.2.18, it should
> ONLY be for CVEs,"
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/53h130p0kdkspn4kj2hq39vkgpyzgvp7
>
> They both are on Logging PMC, and they both have negative opinions on
> making progress with v1.
> I do not really understand what "ONLY be for CVEs" means (e.g. does it
> allow upgrading from Maven2 to Maven3?),
> but I do not want to get accidentally blocked by "oh, this change is not
> allowed because it is not a CVE fix".
Of course we have opinions. But me saying I don’t think it is a good idea
doesn’t mean
“No, it isn’t going to happen”. I’ve said I think lots of things are bad ideas
and then
changed my mind. But the emphasis here should really be on getting consensus
from
those who are trying to do work on Log4j 1.x. Do they just want a 1.2.18
release or a
continuing sub-project. I know you are very vocal about wanting a continuing
sub-project
but I’ve not really heard anybody else say they are in it for the long haul.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
