I am very much against the idea of a single repo. Yes, you can have multiple
projects in the repo but I am not sure how that can be sanely released. I much
prefer the model that Maven has taken. They are now using gitbox [1] which
seems to allow GitHub to be the primary repo. Every Maven plugin is
individually released. Scroll down the link below to the Maven section and you
can see all the plugin repos.
The upside to this is that it are:
1. It is far easier to perform releases of the individual components.
2. It is much easier to accept plugin contributions.
The downsides are:
1. A page like https://maven.apache.org/plugins/
<https://maven.apache.org/plugins/> is needed to keep track of the plugin
versions.
2. It could make sense to have log4j-parent and log4j-bom projects. The
first to help keep the builds similar and the second to help customers pick up
the latest versions.
Ralph
[1] https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf <https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf>
> On Jan 21, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am writing this to in an effort to understand how we can manage and grow
> Log4j. I use the term 'grow' not in the 'bigger is better' sense but more
> in the maturing sense.
>
> I am prompted to write this by Ralph's comment that log4j-core and the main
> repo is too big and that releases take too long make, partially prompted by
> my addition of a new module called log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 which currently
> contains one small class with a dependency on Apache Commons DBCP 2.
>
> I would like to express my gratitude at Ralph's efforts to revitalized
> Log4j and performing most release management duties. Thank you Ralph!
>
> I can see two main orthogonal issues:
> - The size of the git repo.
> - The size of the log4j-core module.
>
> Ralph has proposed that new modules like log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 be moved to
> another 'plugin' repo.
>
> I really dislike this idea:
> - The plugin repo has never been released. Not that one releases a repo but
> you get the point.
> - How do you keep things in sync between repos and code when we have no
> official 'core' SPI.
>
> For my money, we should keep _everything_ in one repo. Good enough for
> Google, so good enough for me. What we release out of that repo is a
> different story and what I would like to discuss next.
>
> This is not the same as Maven plugins IMO but the case could be made for it
> I suppose where a lot/most plugins live in their own repos. It is not the
> same as with Maven IMO because our plugins rely on log4j-core and it's
> guts, for which we only make loose compatibility guarantees -- as opposed
> to log4j-core where we are strict(er). Maven OTOH, has a API for plugin
> auteurs.
>
> For example, log4j-jdbc-dbcp2 replies on the guts of log4j-core and we have
> no 'official' core SPI, so splitting it off into a separate repo would
> greatly increase the risk of it falling out of sync. It is just so much
> more easier to maintain when it is all in one repo.
>
> My proposal is to:
>
> - Put everything back into one repo (Chainsaw too?)
> - Define a core SPI for plugin writers where we make some statement about
> BC, more than the casual 'we try not break stuff.'
> - Defining what Log4j project 'components' we have and release based on
> that. For example, today, all of the main Log4j repo is one component with
> many modules. Chainsaw would be another component of the Log4j project.
> Maybe we need to redefine components: API, File, JDBC and so on. A
> component can have one of more module
> - Got for there.
>
> Thoughts? Help me flush this out?
>
> Thank you for reading!
> Gary
