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.hoogl...@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 <gutoveron...@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 < > > j...@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 >
