Google does not use Git, I think they use some internally developed VCS. On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt Google uses Git then. > > One of the main goals of separating repositories is to make release > management easier so we can RERO more! Though part of the problem there is > that for some reason, the release process requires running all the tests > and whatnot at least 3 times or more. > > On 30 April 2017 at 11:45, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe more than one repo isn't such a good idea? I hear Google uses a > > single repo for all their code... > > > > Gary > > > > On Apr 30, 2017 9:41 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I've noticed just with the Scala repo that integrating various > > repositories > > > into a single coherent website is not so easy anymore (and it wasn't > > really > > > all that easy in the first place). While it may be possible to manage > > each > > > repository's website individually and use symlinks in the svn repo to > > keep > > > the sites linked together, I think there may be easier ways to manage > > this > > > if we took a look at alternative site management tools out there. I've > > > thought about the possibility that we manage our site in a separate git > > > repo, but then we'd have to maintain more clear version numbers in the > > > documentation instead of relying on tagging the docs with the release. > > > > > > Besides plain Asciidoc which as been mentioned here before, the only > open > > > source tool I know of that looks interesting here is the one made by > > vertx: > > > <https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-docgen>. See also their site source > > for > > > an example on advanced usage: <https://github.com/vert-x3/ > vertx-web-site > > >. > > > > > > On 25 April 2017 at 13:59, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ideally, the two will align, just like the OSGi modules (which tend > to > > > > directly correspond with maven modules since that's how they're > > normally > > > > assembled). > > > > > > > > On 25 April 2017 at 13:39, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> We are going to have to prefix "module" with "Java" or "Maven" in > > > >> discussions and documentation to avoid confusion from now on... > > > >> > > > >> Gary > > > >> > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017 10:59 AM, "Matt Sicker" <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > If you browse around the Java 9 javadocs, you'll see that they > split > > > >> things > > > >> > up by module there as well. With that in mind, hopefully it's not > > too > > > >> > complicated to support. What I really want to see is inter-module > > > links > > > >> > (both Java modules and Maven modules that is) work properly. > > > >> > > > > >> > On 25 April 2017 at 11:49, Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Ouch. This is where it gets messy. Currently, the javadoc is > > built > > > >> > > independently for each module. I’m not sure how to aggregate > them > > > all > > > >> > > together but I’m sure Java 9 must be doing that with all the > > modules > > > >> they > > > >> > > are supporting. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Ralph > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 7:03 AM, Mikael Ståldal < > > > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > When adding new modules to the main repo, does each module > need > > > its > > > >> own > > > >> > > > site directory? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Mikael Ståldal < > > > >> > > mikael.stal...@magine.com> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Yes, they should stay in the main repo, at least for the time > > > >> being. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Gary Gregory < > > > >> garydgreg...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >>> And all of that should stay in the same repo IMO. > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> Gary > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> On Apr 25, 2017 2:51 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" < > > > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>>> I guess that log4-core will become: > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-core (will depend on log4j-spi) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-spi > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-csv > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-xml (XmlLayout) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-json (JsonLayout) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-yaml (YamlLayout) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-kafka > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-smtp > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jms > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jdbc (or can this be kept in log4j-core?) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-jpa > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-zeromq > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-server (already done, not yet released) > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-tools (command line tools) > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Then we should also split log4j-nosql: > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-cassandra > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-couchdb > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-mongodb > > > >> > > >>>> - log4j-lucene (new, under development) > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Remko Popma < > > > >> remko.po...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> How many new modules are we talking about, concretely? > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> Matt mentioned the StackOverflow questions about > transitive > > > >> > > >>> dependencies > > > >> > > >>>>> etc, but I imagine splitting log4j-core into 5 or more new > > > >> modules > > > >> > > >>> will > > > >> > > >>>>> also cause confusion... It won't be trivial for users to > > > figure > > > >> out > > > >> > > >>> which > > > >> > > >>>>> of the many modules they do or don't need. The coarse > > > >> granularity > > > >> > of > > > >> > > >>> the > > > >> > > >>>>> current modules is a good thing for users. > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> What problem are we trying to solve? And how can we solve > it > > > >> with > > > >> > the > > > >> > > >>>> least > > > >> > > >>>>> disruption to our users? > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> Would it be an idea, for example, to provide separate jars > > for > > > >> the > > > >> > > >>>> separate > > > >> > > >>>>> modules, but in addition create a combined jar > > > (log4j-core-all) > > > >> > that > > > >> > > >>>>> contains all the classes in log4j-core as well as the > > classes > > > in > > > >> > the > > > >> > > >>> new > > > >> > > >>>>> modules we split out from core? > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Matt Sicker < > > > boa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> I agree with Ralph here. I'm sure we'll figure out rather > > > >> quickly > > > >> > > >>> which > > > >> > > >>>>>> modules are easy to put into rarely updated repositories. > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> On 24 April 2017 at 11:39, Ralph Goers < > > > >> > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > > >> > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> I would prefer a hybrid approach. First things should > be > > > >> moved > > > >> > to > > > >> > > >>>>>>> separate modules. Then, if they don’t seem to be > modified > > > >> > > >>> frequently > > > >> > > >>>>> they > > > >> > > >>>>>>> can be moved to a separate repo. For example, I think it > > > >> would be > > > >> > > >>> OK > > > >> > > >>>>> for > > > >> > > >>>>>>> the Flume Appender to be in a separate repo. It hasn’t > > > >> changed in > > > >> > > >>>>> quite a > > > >> > > >>>>>>> while and I can’t remember the last time it was modified > > due > > > >> to > > > >> > > >>>> changes > > > >> > > >>>>>> in > > > >> > > >>>>>>> Log4j it has and while continue to change with changes > > made > > > in > > > >> > > >>> Flume > > > >> > > >>>>>>> releases. I imagine we have quite a few components that > > are > > > >> > > >>> similar. > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> Ralph > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:39 AM, Gary Gregory < > > > >> > > >>> garydgreg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2017 2:38 AM, "Mikael Ståldal" < > > > >> > > >>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I fully agree with Matt's both proposals. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I'm skeptic to creating more repositories (than we > > already > > > >> have) > > > >> > > >>>>>> though. > > > >> > > >>>>>>> I > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> think that we should start by splitting out modules > from > > > >> > > >>> log4j-core > > > >> > > >>>>> and > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> keep those modules in the main repository with > > synchronized > > > >> > > >>>>> versioning > > > >> > > >>>>>>> and > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> releases, at least for the 2.9 release. We can always > > move > > > >> those > > > >> > > >>>>>> modules > > > >> > > >>>>>>> to > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> other repositories later if we want to. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I do not like more repos either. Since we have already > > gone > > > >> down > > > >> > > >>>> the > > > >> > > >>>>>> more > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> modules road, I say we keep going. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Gary > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> It is a lot of administrative work to create a new > > > repository > > > >> > > >>> (as > > > >> > > >>>> we > > > >> > > >>>>>> have > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> seen for log4j-scala), I don't want us to do all that > > work > > > >> over > > > >> > > >>> and > > > >> > > >>>>>> over > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> again unless really necessary. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> We have a JIRA ticket for this: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1650 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I have already started by breaking out log4j-server: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1851 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I think the next step is to break out plugins (layouts > > and > > > >> > > >>>> appenders) > > > >> > > >>>>>>> with > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> optional 3rd party dependencies into their own modules. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Matt Sicker < > > > >> boa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I think I brought this topic up like 3 years ago when > I > > > was > > > >> > > >>>> working > > > >> > > >>>>> on > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> initial OSGi support, but now that we have 3 more > years > > > >> worth > > > >> > > >>> of > > > >> > > >>>>> code > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> additions and optional features, I think this might > be a > > > >> more > > > >> > > >>>>>>> appropriate > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time to discuss it again in light of experience. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Building log4j-core itself already takes a long time, > > and > > > >> many > > > >> > > >>>>> plugins > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> aren't updated very often at all. In the past, > requiring > > > >> users > > > >> > > >>> to > > > >> > > >>>>>> simply > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> add log4j-core plus any transitive dependencies to use > > > >> optional > > > >> > > >>>>>> features > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> seemed to work well enough, but I still think that's a > > > >> > > >>> confusing > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> distribution mechanism as demonstrated by the numerous > > bug > > > >> > > >>> reports > > > >> > > >>>>> and > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Stack Overflow posts regarding missing transitive > > > >> dependencies > > > >> > > >>> for > > > >> > > >>>>>>> various > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> features. I spent some time experimenting with Log4j > > Boot > > > a > > > >> > > >>> little > > > >> > > >>>>>> while > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ago to help alleviate this problem, but this may be > > > >> > > >>> unnecessary if > > > >> > > >>>>> we > > > >> > > >>>>>>> can > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> agree to modularize log4j-core itself. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I have two different proposals, both of which can be > > used > > > at > > > >> > > >>> the > > > >> > > >>>>> same > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> time. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Split out everything from log4j-core that requires > > 3rd > > > >> party > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies (except for AsyncLogger, though perhaps > we > > > >> could > > > >> > > >>>>> consider > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> shading and renaming those classes like some other low > > > level > > > >> > > >>>>> libraries > > > >> > > >>>>>>> do > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> with JCTools). Ideally, I'd like to see each module > have > > > >> > > >>> required > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies instead of optional ones, so that if, for > > > >> > > >>> instance, I > > > >> > > >>>>>>> include > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a "log4j-config-yaml" dependency, I know that Log4j > will > > > >> > > >>> support > > > >> > > >>>>> YAML > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> configuration without having to specify the individual > > > >> Jackson > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dependencies. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Split out from log4j-core a sort of log4j-spi > module > > > >> which > > > >> > > >>>>> defines > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> interfaces, abstract classes, and annotations for > > plugins > > > >> that > > > >> > > >>>> would > > > >> > > >>>>>> be > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> promoted to the same level of backwards compatibility > > > >> > > >>> guarantees > > > >> > > >>>> as > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> log4j-api. This would aid in cementing what we really > > wish > > > >> to > > > >> > > >>>>> maintain > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility with in the backend while allowing other > > > >> modules > > > >> > > >>> to > > > >> > > >>>>> have > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> less > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> strict guarantees. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> With proposal #1, I'd think that we could more easily > > > start > > > >> > > >>> moving > > > >> > > >>>>>>> modules > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> into separate repositories and release trains. Without > > #2, > > > >> > > >>> though, > > > >> > > >>>>>> this > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> makes version support more annoying to handle, but > > that's > > > >> what > > > >> > > >>>> we'll > > > >> > > >>>>>>> face > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> regardless as we separate more repositories. If we go > > this > > > >> > > >>> route, > > > >> > > >>>>> then > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> there will be no need for a Log4j Boot subproject. > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> What do you all think? > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> -- > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [image: MagineTV] > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> *Mikael Ståldal* > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Senior software developer > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> *Magine TV* > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > > >> > > >>> www.magine.com > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be > > contained > > > >> in > > > >> > > >>> this > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > > > >> message > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > > > >> person), > > > >> > > >>> you > > > >> > > >>>>> may > > > >> > > >>>>>>> not > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the > > > sender > > > >> by > > > >> > > >>>> reply > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> email. > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> -- > > > >> > > >>>>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> -- > > > >> > > >>>> [image: MagineTV] > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> *Mikael Ståldal* > > > >> > > >>>> Senior software developer > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> *Magine TV* > > > >> > > >>>> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > >>>> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > > www.magine.com > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained > > in > > > >> this > > > >> > > >>>> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > > message > > > >> > > >>>> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > > person), > > > >> you > > > >> > may > > > >> > > >>> not > > > >> > > >>>> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > > >> > > >>>> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the > sender > > by > > > >> > reply > > > >> > > >>>> email. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > > > >> > > >> [image: MagineTV] > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> *Mikael Ståldal* > > > >> > > >> Senior software developer > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> *Magine TV* > > > >> > > >> mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > www.magine.com > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained > in > > > this > > > >> > > >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > message > > > >> > > >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a > person), > > > you > > > >> may > > > >> > > not > > > >> > > >> copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > > >> > > >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender > by > > > >> reply > > > >> > > >> email. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > >> > > > [image: MagineTV] > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > *Mikael Ståldal* > > > >> > > > Senior software developer > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > *Magine TV* > > > >> > > > mikael.stal...@magine.com > > > >> > > > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | > > www.magine.com > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in > > > this > > > >> > > > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this > message > > > >> > > > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), > > you > > > >> may > > > >> > > not > > > >> > > > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > > > >> > > > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender > by > > > >> reply > > > >> > > > email. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > -- [image: MagineTV] *Mikael Ståldal* Senior software developer *Magine TV* mikael.stal...@magine.com Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
