Let me also point out another aspect of the overall issue for Log4j 1 vs 2: Log4j 2 provides a compatibility layer for 1, for the 1.2 API and for some configuration files. It is not a 100% drop in replacement, but it could be made much better with some work. So, I would prefer that brain power for 1.x be applied in this direction, such that we could say update to 2.x and pow, it works :-)
Gary On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 08:13 Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > I am just voicing my opinion, others can still cause this to pass. > > Gary > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 00:12 Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I thought there was an agreement on releasing 1.2.18 as "networkless" >> release. >> I think moving to Git (which is a no-op basically), would greatly simplify >> that. >> >> >1.x has been EOL since 2015 >> >> There's a demand for fixing CVEs in 1.x >> >> >with possible confusion as to which version >> >1.x vs 2.x to use in which circumstance >> >> There are cases when users can't upgrade. For instance, if they use >> configuration from code, etc. >> >> >1.x has been EOL since 2015, this would only encourage full resurrection >> >> 1.x live as long as there are individuals that want to maintain it. >> As of now, several people suggested patches that make 1.x buildable float >> at dev@logging. >> Having the same patches as GitHub PR would make it easier for everyone. >> >> Vladimir >> >
