I agree, we should nuke them... On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Antony Stubbs <antony.stu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 have been superseded and/or the current version's source is hosted in a 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? >> >
