Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

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

That will be the next separate discussion and vote.

Ralph

> On Dec 23, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll still need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> --
> Matt Sicker
> 
>> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> hi
>> 
>> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
>> Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying to achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Christian
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> -1
>>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it, let's
>>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
>>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates a
>>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after all.
>>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old repo,
>>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
>>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE on
>>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
>>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
>>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix and
>>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
>>> 
>>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated goal or
>>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
>>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
>>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md so we
>>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
>>> 
>>> Gary
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus has
>>>> recommended that we can divorce
>>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j. However, it
>>>> will not be able to keep the same
>>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
>>>> “logging-“.
>>>> 
>>>> So this vote is to:
>>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
>>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
>>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
>>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
>>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
>>>> 
>>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
>>>> vote so the result will separate
>>>> binding from non-binding votes.
>>>> 
>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was mostly
>>>> discussion. If you want to discuss
>>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Move apache/log4j1 Git repo to apache/logging-log4j1 Git repo

[Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>]

The Log4j1 project is EOL, and assuming that it remains EOL and we are only
doing security patches, I vote in favor of this repo change, to
facilitate making such security patches.
+1

I agree we need to get consensus on the scope of any Log4j1 work.


On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 8:55 AM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

> That will be the next separate discussion and vote.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Dec 23, 2021, at 4:53 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree here. Even if we go ahead with the repo rename, we’ll
> still need some consensus on the scope of this work.
> > --
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> >> On Dec 23, 2021, at 17:11, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> hi
> >>
> >> at the moment I am -1 too, mostly for the reasons Gary mentioned.
> >> Most important is that we don't have a clear goal on what we are trying
> to achieve here. We should be very explicit of why we are doing what.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Christian
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021, at 22:50, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >>> -1
> >>> We just created logging-log4j1 and converted the SVN repo into it,
> let's
> >>> stick to that. I even made a commit ;-)
> >>> I claim it is a good thing to start with a new repo because it creates
> a
> >>> tiny bit of friction, for a project that is still End-of-Life after
> all.
> >>> Even if it is a bit of friction to bring in old stuff from the old
> repo,
> >>> this would provide a kind of effort/value filter.
> >>> The concurrent consensus I see on the PMC is to fix the one listed CVE
> on
> >>> our site plus other fixes in the style of the recent 2.x fixes.
> >>> Bringing in all of the cruft from the old repo will give the wrong
> >>> impression that we actually might be merging this or that random fix
> and
> >>> feature. Which I claim is not the goal here.
> >>>
> >>> I feel we might need an addendum or a subsequent VOTE with a stated
> goal or
> >>> charter for this repo to only provide CVE fixes (see above). Projects
> >>> usually have a charter, not components I do not think, but I think we
> >>> should have one here and put it in front and center in the README.md
> so we
> >>> can manage expectations for people finding the repo on GitHub.
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:35 PM Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22654 Chris Lambertus
> has
> >>>> recommended that we can divorce
> >>>> the read-only SVN repo from https://github.com/apache/log4j.
> However, it
> >>>> will not be able to keep the same
> >>>> name as all Git repos owned by the logging project must start with
> >>>> “logging-“.
> >>>>
> >>>> So this vote is to:
> >>>> 1. Delete the apache/logging-log4j1 repo I created last night.
> >>>> 2. Divorce the apache/log4j repo from SVN.
> >>>> 3. Rename apache/log4j to apache/logging-log4j1.
> >>>> 4. Create a branch named “main” from the v1_2_17 tag.
> >>>> 5. Make main the default branch in GitHub.
> >>>>
> >>>> While all votes are welcome Infra needs consensus from the PMC on this
> >>>> vote so the result will separate
> >>>> binding from non-binding votes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>> PS - I’ve separated this from the previous vote thread since it was
> mostly
> >>>> discussion. If you want to discuss
> >>>> this please prefix the subject with [DISCUSS]
> >
> >
>
>