On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 6:45 AM Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote:
> > For me, there is one kind of "user" > > As Piotr indicated we have multiple user groups. As stewards of this > project we should take these into account, not just our personal agenda. > The current release model where everything shipped all at once doesn't > cater for all such use cases. > > > For me, there is one kind of "user": a POM that Dependabot can > optionally manage > > We will still ship a BOM module where we share a version composition that > is guaranteed to work. Hence, the "user" you mentioned, can still safely > rely on *one single* `log4j.version` property in their `pom.xml` and that > will still get regularly updated by `dependabot`. > So any time you release any jar, the BOM is updated? Gary > > Put another way, we won't disrupt the existing consumption method of Log4j. > It will keep on working. We will introduce a new possibility: only relying > on particular components (e.g., `log4j-api`) and only getting updates when > those components *are* really updated. > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 11:16 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > Thank you for your detailed response :-) > > > > My comments are inline below. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 4:59 PM Piotr P. Karwasz < > piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > > > May I offer a different perspective on this. > > > > > > > I knew that ;) > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:56, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > - I like a mon-repo in general because: > > > > -- Everything is released together with the same version. There is no > > > > mystery of what works with what, what we tested with what. See the > bugs > > > > with Maven plugins mysteriously breaking as counter-examples. > > > > > > While seeing the same version is aesthetically pleasant, we have 4 > > > kinds of users: > > > * library developers will never need anything beyond `log4j-api`, > > > * JUL users will only need `log4j-to-jul`, which declares its > > > `log4j-api` requirement, > > > * same for Logback users, they'll only need `log4j-to-slf4j`, > > > * Log4j Core users **need** to use `log4j-bom` anyway: I have seen > > > several question from Spring Boot users that add the newest version of > > > `log4j-core` to their app and end up with an old (incompatible) > > > version of `log4j-api`, since Spring Boot does version management. > > > > > > > I don't think this is relevant IMO. For me, there is one kind of "user": > a > > POM that Dependabot can optionally manage. Over at Apache Commons, > > Dependabot runs on Friday and that's the day I pay attention to such > things > > (or Saturday AM). Running it every day is not great. It would be nice if > > Dependabot could tell you about releases that address CVEs as soon as > they > > are available. > > > > > > > > > > > -- A mono-repo gives me the confidence that everything works > *together* > > > because > > > > it was built and tested *together*. > > > > > > In a multi-module setup we would still run e.g. `log4j-cassandra` > > > version 2.20.0 tests against the `log4j-core `2.24.0` snapshot. > > > > > > > That's bad in my view, it's confusing as well. > > > > > > > > > > > -- I or Dependabot can update one Maven property in in my POM for all > > of > > > > Log4j and I'm done. > > > > -- I *don't *want a Dependabot PR for each Log4j jar because I use > > > > log4j-api v1, log4j-core v2, log4j-foo v3, log4j-bar v4, log4j-boo > v5, > > > > log4j-arg v6, and so on. > > > > > > If you stick to `log4j-api`, `log4j-bom`, `log4j-to-slf4j` or > > > `log4j-to-jul` above, you would also get just one Dependabot PR. > > > > > > > Maybe, maybe not. What module is in what repo is imaginary ATM. > > > > > > > With some improvements to Dependabot, a new release of > > > `log4j-something` and `log4j-bom` might be ignored by Dependabot if it > > > detects that you are not using `log4j-something`. > > > > > > > "With some improvements to Dependabot..." is an argument against what > you > > propose. You can't sell me something built with a tool that doesn't > exist. > > > > > > > > -- A mono-repo is the lowest barrier to entry for new contributors. > > Don't > > > > force me to learn more weird tooling and procedures, Maven and plain > > git > > > > are enough magic for anyone. > > > > > > I agree that finding the right repo in a multi-repo project might be > > > challenging. > > > On the other hand from a testing perspective the user does not have to > > > know why a PR on `log4j-core` starts a test suite in another repo. > > > > > > > And imagine the surprise when they break a downstream build they had no > > idea existed in the first place. > > > > > > > > - I would like to see all modules split up such that there are no > > > optional > > > > dependencies. I want to be able to depend on a log4j-console for > simple > > > > apps and get a minimal install. > > > > > > I would like that too in 3.x. At my current job the requirement was > > > "having a logging system that prints to a console or a file", so we > > > went with JUL. Of course I switched the backend on my dev box to Log4j > > > Core since debugging using JUL is painful (no proper layout, markers, > > > etc.). > > > > > > > Well, there's one thing we can agree on :-) > > > > > > > > > > > - I am horrified to read "Enables module rot". Hiding a module from a > > > user > > > > and letting it "rot" is terrible: It is not a development process and > > > > reflects poorly on us IMO. To drop a module, we should: Agree in a > poll > > > or > > > > vote, deprecate it for removal, and then remove it. That's a process. > > Not > > > > "Oh, well, it's been rotting on the side over there and it doesn't > work > > > > anymore, oh well! Sorry!" > > > > > > Let's use the term "to retire a module". > > > > > > Giving it a more polite name does not change anything. I see three > states: > > Supported, Deprecated, and Removed. > > > > I'll stop here since I've already expressed my arguments against what's > > below. > > > > Gary > > > > > > > These are feature stable that > > > have a much slower lifecycle than `log4j-core` and a smaller user > > > base. > > > I would prefer: > > > * to still support these modules, > > > * to have a version number that reflects the actual changes to the > > module, > > > * to be able to release them independently if a bug report comes in, > > > * to allow people to relieve us from maintaining these modules, if > > > they work on a day-to-day basis with that technology. E.g. Apache > > > Cassandra might decide to take over `log4j-cassandra` (fork the repo). > > > > > > We are not talking about "hiding" them from the user: one of the > > > projects for next year is to include on our website the generated > > > documentation of every Log4j component that has an enhanced > > > `Log4jPlugins` in its JAR (on a opt-in basis). > > > > > > I have the feeling that we are discussing an X-Y problem: I want to be > > > able to release components independently, so I don't have to release > > > `log4j-core` just because SLF4J released version 2.x or I don't have > > > to delay the release of `log4j-core` because Jackson has a streak of > > > CVEs. I'd like to split the responsibility of releasing a 10M monthly > > > downloads product into more digestible bits. > > > > > > That is why I support multi-repo, because it seems simpler to reach > > > the goal. From a Public Relations perspective I would only like > > > `log4j-api` and the three existing implementations to have separate > > > repos. > > > > > > Piotr > > > > > >
