Then you just have a project based on only one of the modules in the repo, should be fine, no?
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > From a dev POV, it's not great to pull from one repo that has all these > various language bindings. > > Gary > > On Nov 12, 2016 6:44 PM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What do you mean, pick up? Are you talking from a user's point of view >> about the distribution, or from a developer's POV about your workspace? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 13 Nov 2016, at 11:10, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hm, on 2nd though I'm not sure if I'd want to pick up all JVM lang >> updates if I only care about one... >> >> Gary >> >> On Nov 12, 2016 6:08 PM, "Gary Gregory" <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I like that much better... log4j-jvm instead of jvmlang I think. >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2016 6:00 PM, "Remko Popma" <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Looking at LOG4J2-1705, I was thinking that requiring a separate >>> repository for each language could increase the barrier to entry for ideas >>> like that. >>> > >>> > Would it be a good idea to create a single repository >>> (logging-log4j-jvmlang?) which would hold modules for all non-java JVM >>> languages, like scala, kotlin, groovy, jruby, ... ? >>> >>
