You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br> on 2023/05/16 16:27:55 UTC
[VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
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
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>.
Rohit,
This PR has been already tested extensively, by multiple people, in
several different envs using different hypervisors and plugins. I
already tested and confirmed functionality against mbx and Blue
Orangutan is already running. All we are missing is a final reviewer.
Best regards,
João Jandre (JoaoJandre)
On 06/06/2023 09:06, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> João,
>
> Technically, for lazy consensus a vote thread needs three +1 (binding) votes which are only counted towards a decision or approval [1].
>
> Since there are no objections but concerns shared so far, the PR can be reviewed, tested and merged as any other PR as long as it meets the community review and merge guidelines, in this case since the PR is a large one I would request additional manual QA and upgrade tests be done to ensure there is no stability/upgrade regression(s).
>
> [1] 3.2.1: https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ________________________________
> From: João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 01:36
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
>
> 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 <
>> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>>> joao@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
>>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>.
Rohit,
This PR has been already tested extensively, by multiple people, in
several different envs using different hypervisors and plugins. I
already tested and confirmed functionality against mbx and Blue
Orangutan is already running. All we are missing is a final reviewer.
Best regards,
João Jandre (JoaoJandre)
On 06/06/2023 09:06, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> João,
>
> Technically, for lazy consensus a vote thread needs three +1 (binding) votes which are only counted towards a decision or approval [1].
>
> Since there are no objections but concerns shared so far, the PR can be reviewed, tested and merged as any other PR as long as it meets the community review and merge guidelines, in this case since the PR is a large one I would request additional manual QA and upgrade tests be done to ensure there is no stability/upgrade regression(s).
>
> [1] 3.2.1: https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
>
> Regards.
>
> ________________________________
> From: João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 01:36
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
>
> 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 <
>> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>>> joao@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
>>>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
João,
Technically, for lazy consensus a vote thread needs three +1 (binding) votes which are only counted towards a decision or approval [1].
Since there are no objections but concerns shared so far, the PR can be reviewed, tested and merged as any other PR as long as it meets the community review and merge guidelines, in this case since the PR is a large one I would request additional manual QA and upgrade tests be done to ensure there is no stability/upgrade regression(s).
[1] 3.2.1: https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
Regards.
________________________________
From: João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 01:36
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
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 <
> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>> joao@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
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
João,
Technically, for lazy consensus a vote thread needs three +1 (binding) votes which are only counted towards a decision or approval [1].
Since there are no objections but concerns shared so far, the PR can be reviewed, tested and merged as any other PR as long as it meets the community review and merge guidelines, in this case since the PR is a large one I would request additional manual QA and upgrade tests be done to ensure there is no stability/upgrade regression(s).
[1] 3.2.1: https://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html
Regards.
________________________________
From: João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 01:36
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org>; dev@cloudstack.apache.org <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
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 <
> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>> joao@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
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>.
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 <
> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>> joao@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
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by João Jandre Paraquetti <jo...@scclouds.com.br>.
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 <
> rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
>>>> joao@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
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Sidimar Carniel <si...@scarniel.com.br>.
Important effort in this work!
[ ] +1 approve
Regards,
Sidimar Carniel
Em qua., 17 de mai. de 2023 às 10:27, Rodrigo D. Lopez <
rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
> > > joao@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
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Sidimar Carniel <si...@scarniel.com.br>.
Important effort in this work!
[ ] +1 approve
Regards,
Sidimar Carniel
Em qua., 17 de mai. de 2023 às 10:27, Rodrigo D. Lopez <
rodrigoduartelopez@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.hoogland@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 <gutoveronezi@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 <
> > > joao@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
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by "Rodrigo D. Lopez" <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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 <gu...@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 <
> > joao@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
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by "Rodrigo D. Lopez" <ro...@gmail.com>.
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 <da...@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 <gu...@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 <
> > joao@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
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
-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 <gu...@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 <
> joao@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
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Felipe Rossi <fe...@brascloud.com.br.INVALID>.
+1 approve
Att / Regards
Felipe Rossi | BRASCLOUD
*CEO - Founder*
*Email:* felipe@brascloud.com.br | www.brascloud.com.br
Contact + 55 45 99116-0094 / +55 45 3326-4568
[image: Mailtrack]
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality11&>
Sender
notified by
Mailtrack
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality11&>
05/17/23,
08:02:14 AM
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:45 PM Daniel Salvador <gu...@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 <
> joao@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
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
-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 <gu...@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 <
> joao@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
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Daniel Salvador <gu...@apache.org>.
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 <jo...@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
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Upgrade Log4j to Log4j2
Posted by Daniel Salvador <gu...@apache.org>.
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 <jo...@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
>
>