In essence, the build is taking more than it should. Maven "verify" is taking more than half an hour and "site" is taking ages. This in addition to impeding the development cycle, cripples the release process too.
By switching to another build tool (Bazel or anything else), I expect to speed up these processes, maybe, by having more fine-grained control on the dependency graph and avoiding unnecessary steps. On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:26 PM Jeanderson <jeanderso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm not particularly involved with Log4J development but I've been > following this list for a few months now just because I'm curious about > Log4J development (and also because I'm also doing some R&D related to > logging). In fact, this is my first ever post here. > > May I ask some clarifying questions? > - What are the ongoing struggles that make Maven not a good fit for Log4J? > - What are you expecting to achieve by switching to Bazel? > > I'm genuinely interested in this discussion and I hope that it may be > beneficial here. > > Apologies in advance if this discussion is not convenient for this thread. > In case you are wondering, no, I have no connections with Maven or Bazel. > > Best, > Jeanderson Candido > > > > Em qua., 16 de jun. de 2021 às 10:28, Volkan Yazıcı < > volkan.yaz...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > > *[First and foremost, this is my personal Tweet and there I explicitly > > stated that "*I* can offer" the amount for such a work. After completing > > such a project, we need to have a consensus within us to merge it. I want > > to explicitly avoid any unintended misunderstandings.]* > > > > Gary, it was you who said "If the tooling is a problem, then let's look > at > > that first." I definitely had thought the same and evaluated Bazel myself > > for quite some time a couple of months ago. Both Maven and Gradle have > > quite some limitations for monorepos similar to Log4j. I agree that Bazel > > is a total stranger to us (hence the maintenance problem), IDE support > lags > > behind significantly, etc. Yet, it is a tool designed for fast, correct, > > and reproducible build of monorepos – a tool that is so-called to be a > > perfect fit for us. My personal evaluation of Bazel did not yield a > > positive outcome. Before crossing out this option, I wanted to ask around > > to some Bazel experts for their feedback and that is what I did. In > > summary, the outcome was again negative – which I was intending to > discuss > > in detail in the upcoming online meeting. > > > > Long story short, rather than complaining, I gave it a spin myself. It > > wasn't convincing enough, I got in touch with an expert, researched the > > feasibility of such a goal and how much it would cost if I wanted it to > be > > done by somebody else. > > > > If you have other ideas on how we can address "*the tooling problem"*, I > am > > all ears. > > > > *P.S.* I am changing the subject of the thread, since I think it makes > the > > issue personal, which I believe wasn't your intention. > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:55 AM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Volkan Yazıcı (@yazicivo) tweeted at 3:34 PM on Sun, Jun 13, 2021: > > > Do you know of a Bazel ninja who can migrate Log4j's Maven builds? I > can > > > offer €2k (and maybe more) for such a service. > > > (https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1404160220025217027?s=03) > > > > > > How do we maintain something like this? Sounds like a terrible idea to > > me. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > >
