Hi all,
This voting has been going on for quite some time already. In the
meantime, more tests have been done and the PR has been verified as
working with both mbx and BO.
As we did not get any -1 votes, and achieved the minimum of three +1s, I
will therefore close this vote and propose we proceed in the PR. Any
remaining issues people might have with the PR can be addressed in the
PR's discussions in github, so that we can finally merge the PR.
Best regards,
João Jandre (JoaoJandre)
On 18/05/2023 17:29, Sidimar Carniel wrote:
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
