On 05/21/2014 08:06 PM, Robert Rati wrote: > So, who needed log4j2? It is massively incompatible with log4j1.2 and > isn't a simple port job. I would argue if log4j2 was actually needed, > it should have been introduced as a separate log4j2 package and allow > projects to port to it as they have time/need. This update log4j to an > incompatible version with no compat package provided at the same time is > not the way to handle such an upgrade. Giving advanced notice that the > world will come crumbling down and you'll have to deal with it is not > enough. 1. This change was announced [1] in advance and I didn't hear any concerns from anyone until the change was implemented. hadoop and all other packages were mentioned in the announcement as possibly being affected by the update. 2. The original announcement [1] and follow-up messages contain some of the reasons for updating to 2.0. But there are other reasons as well -- log4j 2.0 was blocking mybatis package update [3]. 3. As I already said on IRC multiple times, I am going to introduce a compat package log4j12 before 6 Jun 2014. If that's too late then feel free to package it yourself. 4. I shared my general opinions about Java compat packages and update procedures on java-devel [2] and I didn't hear any concerns about them. Recent log4j update follows the procedure and best practices I presented there, like keeping the name log4j instead using log4j2. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-May/198934.html [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-October/005000.html [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091042 -- Mikolaj Izdebski Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdebsk -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
