I am fine with having a vote also. It is a good idea to leave a formal electronic trail that we are in agreement on this.
Sent from my iPhone > On 2015/07/08, at 3:28, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm OK if you want a VOTE, but I do not know that we are required to have one > for anything else but releasing source code. > > Gary > >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> This is how Struts 1 was put to rest: >> http://dev.struts.apache.narkive.com/vAZSFKAf/vote-formally-end-support-for-struts-1 >> >> And I think, we should follow the example here. I know not many here have >> worked on Log4j 1.x but this isn't the point. The thing is that we as a >> community should clearly state we have found an agreement, and this is how >> we usually do it. >> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 22:34, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> Do we really need a formal vote? None of the committers working on Log4j >>> now ever really committed to Logj 1.x. I know my whole intent when I >>> started working on the logging project was to focus on version 2. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I thought we would make a formal "vote" on this, just like we would do a >>>> release. Not sure if this is the process, but I guess it would mean we >>>> have an agreement. >>>> >>>> After this discussion I would like to follow Ralphs recommendation and put >>>> the EOL date to NOW(). >>>> >>>> Once done, this will go to the Board report, we should notify the user >>>> lists and I will add something to the websites. >>>> >>>> Going to start this tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 17:18, Gary Gregory wrote: >>>>> Christian, >>>>> >>>>> Do you plan on formalizing the result of this thread in a post to the >>>>> MLs? The site? Or is just having the discussion all that you wanted to >>>>> have a record that we at least discussed 1.x EOL? >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Sounds good. >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: 07/04/2015 08:18 (GMT-08:00) >>>>> To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] EOL for Log4j 1.x >>>>> >>>>> To be clear, my opinion is that 1.x actually reached EOL some time ago >>>>> and we have just failed to say so. Unless we plan to do one final release >>>>> (which I don’t), then setting an EOL date in the future doesn’t seem to >>>>> mean anything to me. I would just make an announcement saying that after >>>>> 3 years of releases of Log4j 2 and 1 year of multiple GA releases, during >>>>> which time there have been no releases of Log4j 1.x, that it is time to >>>>> acknowledge that Log4j 1.x has reached its end of life and the Log4j >>>>> community is solely focused on Log4j 2 development. >>>>> Ralph >>>>> >>>>> > On Jul 4, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I agree that 1.x is ready for EOL and I too feel bad for users that >>>>> > take time to work in Bugzilla. Closing Bugzilla will just make some >>>>> > users create Jira tickets though. It might still be good to have an >>>>> > apache place where users can collect 1.x patches and discuss 1.x issues >>>>> > that we can still monitor, especially since there is much information >>>>> > already there. Keeping it read only does not quite fit that bill but i >>>>> > get weary of typing "not actively maintained". I guess closing might >>>>> > help send a clearer message. I see that Struts starts at 2.0 in Jira. >>>>> > >>>>> > Do we all feel that 2.x has all the features and compatibility needs to >>>>> > shut down? Seems like yes to me. Rolling file appenders need some >>>>> > tweaks imo and we have tickets for that. >>>>> > >>>>> > I do like the struts FAQ and especially the last entry. >>>>> > >>>>> > I have a big proprietary app server at work on 1.x and started a branch >>>>> > to port it to 2.x last year but I got stalled when it came time to >>>>> > porting our custom appenders and custom initialization code. It's just >>>>> > too much work. If I had to redo it I would start with using the 1.2 >>>>> > compatibility jar to get to dealing with our custom bits sooner. That's >>>>> > what I would advise people to do. >>>>> > >>>>> > Gary >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -------- Original message -------- >>>>> > From: Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> >>>>> > Date: 07/04/2015 02:30 (GMT-08:00) >>>>> > To: Log4J Developers List <[email protected]> >>>>> > Subject: [DISCUSS] EOL for Log4j 1.x >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > we are actively working on Log4j 2.x, but Log4j 1.x hasn't been touched >>>>> > since the last release. I was doing the last one, and I can't see I will >>>>> > find the time or motivation in any time to roll out another one. Nobody >>>>> > else stood up since then. That's OK, because I can observe the community >>>>> > adapting Log4j 2. No numbers, just feelings. >>>>> > >>>>> > I would like to propose to mark an EOL date for Log4j 1.x by the end of >>>>> > the year. As we don't fix things (most likely) with 1.x, this is not >>>>> > about "maintenance" at all. The future date might be more or less our >>>>> > signal that we want to actively help our users migrating to 2.x. >>>>> > >>>>> > We can use the remaining time to write or improve documentation, maybe >>>>> > even write some migration tool. >>>>> > >>>>> > In the announcement we should highlight the history of Log4j 1, it's >>>>> > problems and why we think Log4j 2.x is the best way to log in Java >>>>> > today. >>>>> > >>>>> > Let me know what you think about this idea. All feedback - committer or >>>>> > not - is welcome. >>>>> > >>>>> > I suggest we leave this discussion open until we reached an agreement or >>>>> > at least one week, so everybody got a chance to look into this. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Christian >>>>> > >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition >>>>> Spring Batch in Action >>>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
