Volkan, as you know I am a native speaker. I don’t find Gary’s ton sarcastic but frustrated.
That said, asking for input on how it needs to be changed rather than just complaining is correct. See my other comments below. > On Sep 5, 2023, at 10:10 AM, Volkan Yazıcı <vol...@yazi.ci> wrote: > > Gary, I am not a native speaker, but I find your tone sarcastic. I kindly > ask you to adjust it. > > [My comments are inline.] > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 6:21 PM Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I should be able to unzip and build, NOT unzip and then scratch my head, >> look for other files like zips and tars... > > > There is no TAR anywhere. There is only the distribution ZIP containing > `src.zip`, binary files (JARs) and so on. If you prefer `src` in a folder > rather than a compressed file, we can make that happen. The only > downside is those who download a distribution only for the JARs will also > need to reserve disk space for sources too, hence why I put them in a > compressed file. (This convention is practiced by JDK distributions too.) > > sigh, this whole dev process is >> getting WORSE. >> > > Unless you define what is worse, I cannot address it. > > And we want to spread sources in a buch of repos, bleh. > > > I am the only one in the PMC that agrees with your points regarding > mono-repo, and, together with Piotr, I am trying to find a way forward > without breaking the repository. No decisions have been made yet. I kindly > ask you to understand that everybody is trying to help with their best > intentions. While I may not totally agree with Gary regarding the mono-repo, I do respect his point of view. As I have tried to state, I believe Gary sees the mono-repo as providing some sort of guarantee that isn’t really there, or at least as much as he thinks it is. I suspect that once you can prove we have a way to ensure that all log4j components play nice together Gary may not care so much if there is one repo or 20. > > >> All Apache and FOSS projects I've seen just have a src zip with a snapshot >> repo minus some files, not some byzantine structure. > > >> How is this nested zip mess HELPING users and lowering the bar to entry? >> > > I can explain this. This is what > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/logging/log4j/2.19.0 looks like: > > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.tar.gz > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.tar.gz.asc > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.tar.gz.sha256 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.tar.gz.sha512 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.zip > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.zip.asc > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.zip.sha256 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-bin.zip.sha512 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.tar.gz > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.tar.gz.asc > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.tar.gz.sha256 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.tar.gz.sha512 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.zip > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.zip.asc > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.zip.sha256 > apache-log4j-2.19.0-src.zip.sha512 > > This is what `log4j-tools/0.4.0` looks like: > > apache-log4j-tools-0.4.0.zip > apache-log4j-tools-0.4.0.zip.asc > apache-log4j-tools-0.4.0.zip.sha512 > > I think the latter is more self-explanatory, compact, and contains > everything the former has. This is simply a difference of opinion. Historically releases have always consisted of the zip of the source in one zip and the artifact jars archived into another zip. This is pretty straightforward and simple. If you now have to unzip a file and then inspect the results to figure out what is what then this indeed is not nearly as straightforward as what we were doing. > > Why are all the ".githug" files even in the source zip file? >> > > There are no `.githug` files. There is a `.github` folder. They are of > particular importance since the reusable CI workflows are part of the > release. They are code used by other projects. They will be versioned and > used by referring to their version. > > `src.zip` contains *everything* tracked by Git that is responsible for > making that release happen. It is not a sparse checkout of the actual > repository. That said, Log4j always had it; go and download any > `apache-log4j-*-src.{zip,tar.gz}` of your liking. Hence I am not able to > understand your objection for this particular occasion. Ralph
