Important effort in this work! [ ] +1 approve
Regards, Sidimar Carniel Em qua., 17 de mai. de 2023 às 10:27, Rodrigo D. Lopez < rodrigoduartelo...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Thanks for the great work! > > Based on discussions in PR and the discussion thread[1]. My vote is +1. > > Log4j v1 (deprecated) and its current alternative reload4j in use in ACS > are not ideal for the long run. Therefore, for the future of ACS, and to > enable us to keep evolving, the upgrade is most welcome. > > Regards, > Rodrigo Lopez > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/261j7m0p5mr4q7yclvo49mwhkxz4yov2 > > Em qua., 17 de mai. de 2023 às 09:41, Daan Hoogland < > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > > -0 > > > > Joao, Daniel reacted negatively to my question to create a proxy with bad > > arguments and I had no time to respond yet. I think not adding a proxy at > > this time is a missed opportunity and I would full heartedly +1 if we > had. > > Not creating a proxy class (with or without configurability) is a waste > of > > your effort. > > All the standardisation of calls is very useful irrespective. > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:45 PM Daniel Salvador <gutoveron...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, João > > > > > > Considering the discussion we had in the thread[1] and that the > conflicts > > > will be mostly regarding loggers names (which is simple to fix), I am > +1 > > on > > > the proposal. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel Salvador (gutoveronezi) > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/261j7m0p5mr4q7yclvo49mwhkxz4yov2 > > > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 1:28 PM João Jandre Paraquetti < > > > j...@scclouds.com.br> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > > > I am opening this voting thread as result of the discussion in thread > > > > "ACS upgrade to Log4J2 version 2.19"[1]. > > > > > > > > The voting aims to continue the efforts and conclude the upgrade of > the > > > > ACS logging library to Log4j2 through PR 7131[2]; merge the PR as > soon > > > > as possible and provide ways to contributors solve the conflicts > > easily, > > > > so all the contributors have time to fix their merge conflicts before > > > > 4.19; announce that change in the release notes and provide ways to > > > > users upgrade their customization made to the default log4j > > > > configuration files. > > > > > > > > For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to > > > indicate > > > > "(binding)" with their vote? > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > João Jandre (JoaoJandre) > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/261j7m0p5mr4q7yclvo49mwhkxz4yov2 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/7131 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Daan > > >
