>Do you have "facts" (like message on mailing list) ? I am not sure what you mean.
For example: 1) Ralph Goers says the existing committers did not touch 1.x code a lot: https://lists.apache.org/thread/j6zrdp1d148qpkg0g7x3cc41o070oq6n Ralph>Virtually all of the contributors to the Log4j 1.x project left a few years before it was declared Ralph>EOL. That is the primary reason it was retired. Although the current set of committers have Ralph>access to the code, none of us have ever built it 2) Ralph Goers (a member of Logging PMC) suggested that one of the ways to move forward is to re-incubate log4j 1.x: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mlpb9v15r8qzpc58xnjn99r6tf9yy0p5 This in conjunction with #1 sounds like the current logging PMC is not interested in moving log4j 1.x forward. 3) I suggest moving log4j 1.x to Git, and nobody from PMC approves the change; Gary Gregory (a member of Logging PMC) votes with -1 (binding): https://lists.apache.org/thread/y89v84okzs76g2yl760vx5yc0w1y4yd8 4) Both Gary and Mike push for "improving log4j 1->2 compatibility layer": https://lists.apache.org/thread/hq2m11f1w9yp031r5f65b9h4ym2zy1kc https://lists.apache.org/thread/tw172svxt1q6wds7lt9szyjw2sxjf34n I understand that log4j2 team might want everybody to upgrade to 2.x, however, that is not possible since the apps would need significant regression testing, the compatibility layer is far from perfect, and so on. Many apps are fine with 1.x, and they do not need 2.x features. There's no reason to upgrade, so I am not interested in investing time in improving the compatibility layer. Is it what you ask? Vladimir
