Another batch of repositories? -1 and you must be joking. We really are going off the map here IMO :(
Releasing different jars from one repo is the same as releasing jars from one SSD: A repo is just a folder with subfolders you can organize as you best see fit. So why have 10 repos? Or how ever many we have now splintered Log4j into? It's not like we document it. I bet devs put all Log4j repos in the same folder anyway... Does STF funding work by getting paid on a per repo basis? Sigh. At some point in the future I only hope someone will reign in this mad cow bug we've caught and use a mono repo for Log4j. I'm have some work to contributing here soon but this is all noise that gets in the way IMO. Gary On 2024/10/23 08:39:52 "Piotr P. Karwasz" wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 18:52, Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Since I would like to release `3.0.0-beta3` some time soon and we did > > not reach a larger consensus, I propose to: > > > > - Remove **all** the bridges from `3.0.0-beta3`, with the exception of > > `Log4jBridgeHandler`, which is not an API-to-API bridge, but an > > appender for JUL user by Spring Boot. > > - Create a `logging-slf4j` repo that will contain the SLF4J-to-Log4j > > and Log4j-to-SLF4J bridge, > > - Create a `logging-jul` repo that will contain the JUL-to-Log4j and > > Log4j-to-JUL bridges. > > - Add to `log4j-bom` the references to the 2.x version of the bridges. > > > > What do you think? > > After discussing this with Volkan on Slack and taking into account the > comments in this thread, I would revise my proposal to: > > - Remove **all** the bridges from the `main` branch. For now I would > keep the reduced version of `log4j-jul` (with just > Log4jBridgeHandler`) to make it easier to test with Spring Boot. > > - Create a new `logging-slf4j` repository with modules: > * `log4j-api-to-slf4j`: a renamed version of `log4j-to-slf4j` (from 2.x), > * `slf4j-to-log4j-api`: a renamed version of `log4j-slf4j2-impl` (from 2.x). > > - Create a new `logging-jdk` repository with modules: > * `log4j-api-to-jul`: a renamed version of `log4j-to-jul` (from 2.x), > * `jul-to-log4j-api`: a renamed version of the `jul-to-log4j` > artifact I recently added to 3.x, > * `jpl-to-log4j-api`: a renamed version of the `log4j-jpl` artifact > (from 2.x). > > The `logging-slf4j` repo will have the same JDK baseline as SLF4J > (currently JDK 8). The `logging-jdk` repo will have the same JDK > baseline as the last modification to either JUL or JPL (currently 9). > > What do you think? > > Piotr >
