I agree. I think language bindings and any language specific plugins belong in their own repo.
Ralph > On Nov 13, 2016, at 12:06 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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, ... ? >> >
