Gary, With the changes that have been made the bridges only have a dependency on Logj4 API - which is only in the 2.x branch. Should these artifacts only be on the 2.x branch as well?
These bridges don’t change nearly as often as core or even api do. IMO releasing them with every release doesn’t make a lot of sense. To be honest, I would have suggested that the API and everything that is only dependent on the API (except for core) be in a separate repo with its own release schedule. This would match pretty much what SLF4J does. Are you suggesting that the bridges be included in both 2.x and main? Are you suggesting that the bridges MUST be versioned the same as 2.x despite them almost never having any changes? I’m simply trying to understand what your rationale is here. Ralph > On Oct 23, 2024, at 3:50 AM, Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >
