Log4j

[Scott Deboy <sc...@gmail.com>]

I wanted to clarify on on our general list that we shouldn't tell
folks that  "Log4j is not actively maintained any more."  In my
opinion, it gives people the impression that there will be no further
releases, and we haven't made that decision as a group.

Feel free to tell people that development efforts are focused on
log4j2, but please don't give folks the impression log4j will no
longer be updated.  If there's a good enough reason to push another
log4j release, I don't see why we wouldn't do it.

Thanks

Scott

Re: Log4j

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

While I generally agree with what you are saying (the phrase "Log4j 1.x is not actively maintained" should be avoided), when was the last time a commit was made to Log4j 1.x?  While I am sure someone would jump up to fix a critical issue I do think it is fair to tell people that based on the activity of the last couple of years, most issues are not going to get any attention.

Ralph

On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:56 AM, Scott Deboy wrote:

> I wanted to clarify on on our general list that we shouldn't tell
> folks that  "Log4j is not actively maintained any more."  In my
> opinion, it gives people the impression that there will be no further
> releases, and we haven't made that decision as a group.
> 
> Feel free to tell people that development efforts are focused on
> log4j2, but please don't give folks the impression log4j will no
> longer be updated.  If there's a good enough reason to push another
> log4j release, I don't see why we wouldn't do it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Scott