Well Chainsaw v2 (http://logging.apache.org/chainsaw/index.html) supersedes V1 right, and is hosted elsewhere right? So I don't see any point in keeping the source for v1 HEAD.
On 8/04/2010, at 12:09 PM, Scott Deboy wrote: > Neither of these tools are hosted in a separate repository that I'm aware of. > However, they are always available from svn, or via previous releases. If > someone wanted to, they could host them in a different repository, I'm not > sure we need to worry about it. > > It could be useful to tag the source tree just before they were removed. > > Scott > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Antony Stubbs <antony.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If I'm understanding you correctly, that either the LF5 and Chainsaw projects > have been superseded and/or the current version's source is hosted in a > separate repository, then IMO most definitely they should be deleted from > this repo. > > > Scott Deboy wrote: > > > > I'd think we could just remove LF5 and Chainsaw V1 from the log4j source > > tree. They haven't been updated in years, and folks can use a prior > > release > > of log4j if they want to get to them. > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Antony Stubbs > > <antony.stu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi guys, following on from my comment, I've uploaded a proposed > >> modularisation here: > >> > >> http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/7c5b4689d5cc509d207e3270fc6f012ea8064c6d > >> > >> http://github.com/astubbs/log4j/commit/ce3ce992d509e8c341914437bbc11442711fc5bf > >> > >> As well as the module split, I would also do a more complete maven > >> migration > >> (except for possibly the NT build stuff). > >> > >> My immediate drive for this (apart from the other obvious benefits) is > >> the > >> file size of the log4j jar (~800k). Removing LF5 alone removes 490k > >> (uncompressed). > >> > >> I know this drives up the complexity, but I think it is worth if to get > >> the > >> at least the GUI stuff out. > >> > >> Cheers. > >> > >> > >> Antony Stubbs wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi guys, what's the established opinion from log4j about breaking > >> > log4j up into modules ie net, nt appender, chainsaw etc?
