Clearly, since Chainsaw V2 is the current version, it seems odd to deliver the code for Chainsaw V1. This should be deprecated in a point release, 1.3 or 2.0, not in a 1.2.x maintenance release though.
Gary Gregory Senior Software Engineer Seagull Software email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com email: ggreg...@apache.org www.seagullsoftware.com From: Antony Stubbs [mailto:antony.stu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 17:16 To: Log4J Developers List Subject: Re: Modular Build 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<mailto: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 wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly, that either the LF5 and Chainsaw projects have been superseded and/or the current version's source is hosted in a separate repository, then IMO most definitely they should be deleted from this repo.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<mailto: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?
