You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@logging.apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2021/12/29 19:54:48 UTC
[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
What “People”. So far you are the only person who seems interested. Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion thread. AFAIK that’s it. Two people does not make a community.
Furthermore, Log4j 1 was declared EOL 6 years ago and has been unsupported for 9 years. It will remain EOL until the PMC says otherwise.
Ralph
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 12:46 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -1 as it is invalid to say the project is "end of life" provided there are
> people willing to support it.
>
> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>.
Hi Leo,
good new year to you!
On Sun, Jan 2, 2022, at 07:12, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Happy new year everyone!
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion
>> thread.
>
>
> I'm here. I did mention in a couple mails I'd be away. Real life happens :).
>
> I think I made clear what I am interested in through several emails and in
> code.
> I've also pointed out what I wouldn't do (like step up as a maintainer on a
> permanent basis, or incubate something).
I think you are very welcome at this place and no matter the outcome of this vote, let us discuss how you can still find an open source home here. I know you have a different opinion, but learning more about Log4j1 I think a person with your skills and dedication is more than welcome in working with log4j 1 migration.
cheers!
> I think all the relevant arguments on how to proceed with 1.x have been
> made (a few times...).
> I don't have anything new to add.
> I'll accept the vote outcome.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> Leo
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Hey,
Happy new year everyone!
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:54 PM Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> Leo seemed interested at first but didn’t weigh in on the discussion
> thread.
I'm here. I did mention in a couple mails I'd be away. Real life happens :).
I think I made clear what I am interested in through several emails and in
code.
I've also pointed out what I wouldn't do (like step up as a maintainer on a
permanent basis, or incubate something).
I think all the relevant arguments on how to proceed with 1.x have been
made (a few times...).
I don't have anything new to add.
I'll accept the vote outcome.
Cheers!
Leo
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>.
+1, Option 1
People should migrate to log4j2.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 01:56, Tim Perry <ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose that this vote should stay open longer than 72 hours given that
> we are coming up on New Years and many people who would wish to weigh in
> might be on vacation right now.
>
> Tim
>
> > On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:29 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be committers and
> later PMC members. Having at least three people maintaining anything is an
> Apache standard for maintaining vendor neutrality, ensuring a minimum
> number of people can verify release candidates to address security issues
> or any other releases.
> >
> > —
> > Matt Sicker
> >
> >> On Dec 29, 2021, at 14:41, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it
> without
> >> this PMC’s approval.
> >>
> >> Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
> >> release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
> >> Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
> >> however, that won't hold water.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc
> regarding
> >> approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron
> still.
> >>
> >> I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
> >>
> >>> But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
> >> interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
> >>
> >> I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
> >> accepting patches and releasing 1.2
> >> I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange
> why
> >> do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x
> maintainers.
> >>
> >> 1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all
> the
> >> logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
> >> questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
> >>
> >> 2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it
> and
> >> merge?
> >>
> >> 3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to
> support
> >> 1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
> >> I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I
> can't
> >> guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
> >> they will always have interest in 1.2
> >>
> >> Vladimir
>
--
Dominik Psenner
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>.
Makes sense. I will close thus vote not earlier than Jan 5, if there is no further objections. Thanks for your input Tim
--
The Apache Software Foundation
V.P., Data Privacy
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021, at 01:56, Tim Perry wrote:
> I propose that this vote should stay open longer than 72 hours given
> that we are coming up on New Years and many people who would wish to
> weigh in might be on vacation right now.
>
> Tim
>
>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:29 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be committers and later PMC members. Having at least three people maintaining anything is an Apache standard for maintaining vendor neutrality, ensuring a minimum number of people can verify release candidates to address security issues or any other releases.
>>
>> —
>> Matt Sicker
>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 14:41, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without
>>> this PMC’s approval.
>>>
>>> Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
>>> release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
>>> Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
>>> however, that won't hold water.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc regarding
>>> approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron still.
>>>
>>> I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
>>>
>>>> But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
>>> interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
>>>
>>> I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
>>> accepting patches and releasing 1.2
>>> I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange why
>>> do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x maintainers.
>>>
>>> 1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all the
>>> logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
>>> questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
>>>
>>> 2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it and
>>> merge?
>>>
>>> 3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to support
>>> 1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
>>> I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I can't
>>> guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
>>> they will always have interest in 1.2
>>>
>>> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Tim Perry <ti...@gmail.com>.
I propose that this vote should stay open longer than 72 hours given that we are coming up on New Years and many people who would wish to weigh in might be on vacation right now.
Tim
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 2:29 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be committers and later PMC members. Having at least three people maintaining anything is an Apache standard for maintaining vendor neutrality, ensuring a minimum number of people can verify release candidates to address security issues or any other releases.
>
> —
> Matt Sicker
>
>> On Dec 29, 2021, at 14:41, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without
>> this PMC’s approval.
>>
>> Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
>> release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
>> Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
>> however, that won't hold water.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc regarding
>> approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron still.
>>
>> I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
>>
>>> But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
>> interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
>>
>> I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
>> accepting patches and releasing 1.2
>> I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange why
>> do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x maintainers.
>>
>> 1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all the
>> logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
>> questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
>>
>> 2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it and
>> merge?
>>
>> 3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to support
>> 1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
>> I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I can't
>> guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
>> they will always have interest in 1.2
>>
>> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Consistent contributors are frequently invited to be committers and later PMC members. Having at least three people maintaining anything is an Apache standard for maintaining vendor neutrality, ensuring a minimum number of people can verify release candidates to address security issues or any other releases.
—
Matt Sicker
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 14:41, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without
> this PMC’s approval.
>
> Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
> release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
> Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
> however, that won't hold water.
>
> Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc regarding
> approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron still.
>
> I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
>
>> But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
> interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
>
> I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
> accepting patches and releasing 1.2
> I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange why
> do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x maintainers.
>
> 1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all the
> logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
> questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
>
> 2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it and
> merge?
>
> 3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to support
> 1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
> I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I can't
> guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
> they will always have interest in 1.2
>
> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
These show up as two distinct threads In Mail on my MacBook Pro.
FWIW, the PMC is aware of at least two distributions that already seem to fulfill the need of providing patched versions of Log4 1:
1. https://github.com/albfernandez/log4j/
2. https://search.maven.org/artifact/io.confluent/confluent-log4j (The source appears to be in a private repository).
Of course, both of these use different maven coordinates than Apache Log4j so users will have to ensure they exclude the Apache Log4j dependencies.
Ralph
> On Dec 30, 2021, at 5:23 AM, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Christian>vote in this thread, which is, btw not meant for discussion but
> for voting.
>
> We are on a [DISCUSS] thread (check the subject).
>
> Ralph "created" [DISCUSS] thread by hitting "reply" and changing the
> subject.
> "reply" keeps message-id, so it might look like a single thread.
>
> See both "[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x" and "[VOTE] Future of Log4j
> 1.x"
> at https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@logging.apache.org
>
> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com>.
Christian>vote in this thread, which is, btw not meant for discussion but
for voting.
We are on a [DISCUSS] thread (check the subject).
Ralph "created" [DISCUSS] thread by hitting "reply" and changing the
subject.
"reply" keeps message-id, so it might look like a single thread.
See both "[DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x" and "[VOTE] Future of Log4j
1.x"
at https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@logging.apache.org
Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@apache.org>.
If there is long term commitment apart from these urgent fixes we can run another vote.
You cannot guarantee you are alive by February, nobody can give such guarantees.
The logging pmc is not here to accept all patches as they come in but to make decisions best to the project (among other duties).
Once there is a mandate and consent among pmc we most likely try to review and comment on the prs coming in. No guarantees though your pr will be accepted as it is.
That said, we continue to vote in New committers and pmc members as we always have. Prerequisites to become logging committer is long term interest in logging and understanding the ASF way. Also, I daresay, many people here like to add new people when they are adding positive attitude (versus toxic behavior).
I hope all your questions are clarified now and we can continue to discuss (see Ralph's message) on slack and vote in this thread, which is, btw not meant for discussion but for voting.
--
The Apache Software Foundation
V.P., Data Privacy
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, at 21:41, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
>>Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without
> this PMC’s approval.
>
> Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
> release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
> Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
> however, that won't hold water.
>
> Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc regarding
> approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron still.
>
> I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
>
>>But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
> interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
>
> I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
> accepting patches and releasing 1.2
> I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange why
> do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x maintainers.
>
> 1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all the
> logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
> questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
>
> 2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it and
> merge?
>
> 3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to support
> 1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
> I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I can't
> guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
> they will always have interest in 1.2
>
> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com>.
>Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without
this PMC’s approval.
Exactly. As far as I understand, Logging pmc should accept patches and
release fixes or they should approve reincubating.
Of course, you can try rejecting patches and disapprove reincubation,
however, that won't hold water.
Unfortunately, I have not seen the response from the logging pmc regarding
approve/disapprove re-incubating. There's a pending question to Ron still.
I do not consider forks outside of the ASF.
>But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of
interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
I find the question irrelevant, and I find it has nothing to do with
accepting patches and releasing 1.2
I belive there were even people on incubator thread, so it is strange why
do you demand that I provide you with a list of rock-star 1.x maintainers.
1) I can't guarantee I will be alive in February. Can you guarantee all the
logging pmc members will be alive then? I doubt so. So I find that
questions like "how can we be sure you will send patches" too intimate.
2) I have already filed a patch for buildscripts. Whould you review it and
merge?
3) Suppose I find a team (e.g 4-5 ASF fellows) who are willing to support
1.2. What do you do then? Would you add all of them to the logging pmc?
I don't really see the point why do you ask, and at the same time I can't
guarantee the people I gather will be alive tomorrow. I can't guarantee
they will always have interest in 1.2
Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
You are a member of 2 ASF projects yet you don’t understand how the ASF works?
Log4j is owned by the Logging Services PMC. You cannot incubate it without this PMC’s approval.
You can certainly fork it outside the ASF but you cannot call it Log4j as the ASF owns the trademark.
Sonatype would be unlikely to accept such a project with different maven coordinates that
overlaps the log4j package naming as it would create a dependency mess.
But I notice the one topic you did not respond to was the lack of interested people other than yourself. Why is that?
Ralph
> On Dec 29, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you are not interested in maintaining 1.x, please give it away (to
> another pmc or add pmc members) and that is it.
>
> Even if you all vote for option 1, then I would just reincubate 1.x or find
> an alternative route to make 1.2.18, 1.2.19 and so on. So what is the point
> of this vote then? You can't really prevent 1.2.18, 1.2.19, ...
>
> Vladimir
Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Future of Log4j 1.x
Posted by Vladimir Sitnikov <si...@gmail.com>.
If you are not interested in maintaining 1.x, please give it away (to
another pmc or add pmc members) and that is it.
Even if you all vote for option 1, then I would just reincubate 1.x or find
an alternative route to make 1.2.18, 1.2.19 and so on. So what is the point
of this vote then? You can't really prevent 1.2.18, 1.2.19, ...
Vladimir