logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SVN Migration?
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:22:24 GMT

On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> A simple request that the "logging-" prefix is dropped is no big  
> deal, and
> accommodated without any reflections.
>

The XML project dropped the xml- (http://xml.apache.org/svn.html#Web 
+Access+to+the+Repository) and I think that we should do likewise.

After the conversion, we'd have something like:

/logging
     /chainsaw
        /trunk
        /tags
        /branches
     /log4cxx
        /trunk
        /tags
        /branches
     /log4j
        /trunk
        /tags
        /branches
     /log4net
        /trunk
        /tags
        /branches
     /site
        /trunk
        /tags
        /branches

After the repo is established, then I'd suggest establishing a  
logging/sandbox and find a new home for logging-log4j/contribs (which  
could be the sandbox)


 From the Subversion book (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/svn- 
book.html#svn-ch-5-sect-6.1)
> There are benefits to using a single repository for multiple  
> projects, most obviously the lack of duplicated maintenance. A  
> single repository means that there is one set of hook scripts, one  
> thing to routinely backup, one thing to dump and load if Subversion  
> releases an incompatible new version, and so on. Also, you can move  
> data between projects easily, and without losing any historical  
> versioning information.
>
> The downside of using a single repository is that different  
> projects may have different commit mailing lists or different  
> authentication and authorization requirements. Also, remember that  
> Subversion uses repository-global revision numbers. Some folks  
> don't like the fact that even though no changes have been made to  
> their project lately, the youngest revision number for the  
> repository keeps climbing because other projects are actively  
> adding new revisions.
In our current CVS setup, each sub-project (chainsaw, log4cxx, log4j,  
log4net, site) have their own CVS module with distinct lists of  
committer and change notifications.  The quote from the SVN book  
suggests that if we use a single repo for Logging Services may  
require or encourage that we unify the committer lists and change  
notification.  That is have Logging Services committers who have  
write access to all products (instead of log4j committers, log4net  
committers, etc) and have all change notifications go to  
svn@logging.apache.org (instead of going to log4j- 
dev@logging.apache.org, log4cxx-dev@logging.apache.org, etc).  Is  
that a proper understanding of the consequences of having a single  
repo for LS?  I think that might be a good change, but we need to  
discuss the implications.





Mime
View raw message