On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
A simple request that the "logging-" prefix is dropped is no big
deal, and
accommodated without any reflections.
The XML project dropped the xml- (http://xml.apache.org/svn.html#Web
+Access+to+the+Repository) and I think that we should do likewise.
After the conversion, we'd have something like:
/logging
/chainsaw
/trunk
/tags
/branches
/log4cxx
/trunk
/tags
/branches
/log4j
/trunk
/tags
/branches
/log4net
/trunk
/tags
/branches
/site
/trunk
/tags
/branches
After the repo is established, then I'd suggest establishing a
logging/sandbox and find a new home for logging-log4j/contribs (which
could be the sandbox)
From the Subversion book (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/svn-
book.html#svn-ch-5-sect-6.1)
There are benefits to using a single repository for multiple
projects, most obviously the lack of duplicated maintenance. A
single repository means that there is one set of hook scripts, one
thing to routinely backup, one thing to dump and load if Subversion
releases an incompatible new version, and so on. Also, you can move
data between projects easily, and without losing any historical
versioning information.
The downside of using a single repository is that different
projects may have different commit mailing lists or different
authentication and authorization requirements. Also, remember that
Subversion uses repository-global revision numbers. Some folks
don't like the fact that even though no changes have been made to
their project lately, the youngest revision number for the
repository keeps climbing because other projects are actively
adding new revisions.
In our current CVS setup, each sub-project (chainsaw, log4cxx, log4j,
log4net, site) have their own CVS module with distinct lists of
committer and change notifications. The quote from the SVN book
suggests that if we use a single repo for Logging Services may
require or encourage that we unify the committer lists and change
notification. That is have Logging Services committers who have
write access to all products (instead of log4j committers, log4net
committers, etc) and have all change notifications go to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (instead of going to log4j-
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], etc). Is
that a proper understanding of the consequences of having a single
repo for LS? I think that might be a good change, but we need to
discuss the implications.
