On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 11:19 AM Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> +1 > > Thanks for volunteering Abhishek. As you've worked already as a RM for > CloudStack LTS maintenance releases that you've shared and I think you have > all the necessary experience to work as the 4.19 RM. > > Daan, I don't see any mention of log4j on this thread or feel that > Abhishek has disregarded the log4j issue. As an individual contributor, > he's well within his rights to volunteer as a release manager and share his > opinion and thoughts in the community in this or any other threads. > Sorry if I wasn't clear, there is no mention of log4j on this thread, but there is mention of RM work on the log4j thread [2]. [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/t62rp2pzsrl21vjlqbdgg49kmdxgjxgd I am not saying that either Daniel or Abhishek should be the RM, but the work that we are going to have should be agreed upon. Having two RM candidates is a luxury we should not squander. If they can join efforts and get to a mutual supported plan that would be ideal. We shouldn't force or expect anybody to conclude a discussion in a way we > would want. We must all conduct and treat one another professionally and > politely on the mailing lists [1]. > > [1] https://cloudstack.apache.org/mailing-lists.html In short, I stand by my previous mail on this thread. This is provided there is no misunderstanding on what was meant. > > > > Regards. > > ________________________________ > From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 13:19 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Cc: us...@cloudstack.apache.org <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.19.0 > > Abhishek, I think the discussion about log4j2 needs to be concluded in > coercion with this. I am fine if you and/or Daniel co-RM this release for > instance, but the log4j issue may not be disregarded on these grounds and > must be fully discussed and agreed upon. > > > ... > > > -- > Daan > > > > -- Daan
