Rename php-fig/log-util into php-fig/log-util-test

[Ralf Lang]

Hello,

this is a bit of a first timer, I hope I get this right.

Proposal:

I propose to rename php-fig/log-util into php-fig/log-util-test before
starting a vote on the 1.0.0 release.

Transition:

The log-util package is currently unreleased. I think having a breaking
change/rename before 1.0.0 is more acceptable than releasing 1.0.0 and
then completely changing what the package is supposed to contain.

Rationale:

psr/log is an older PSR predating many conventions. The 1.x release
shipped both boilerplate implementation and test utilities inside the
main psr/log package.
Testing parts got removed in psr/log 2.0 and resurrected/updated into
psr/log-util. Boilerplate implementation stayed with the actual psr/log
repo as it is included in the wording of the PSR.
More current PSRs ship only interfaces in the main psr package and move
the boilerplate implementation to an -util package. These util packages
may contain test coverage for the actual implementation code they ship.
This util package is different. It contains code that facilitates PSR
compliance testing for loggers. It is clearly documented as "This
package should be used only for tests."

Future maintainers of psr/log may want to move reference implementation
outside the actual spec in a new major revision. I want to unblock the
expected package name for this purpose, php-fig/log-util, for future use
aligned with more recent PSRs.

Test Harness, Non-Prod code:
-> log-util-test

Anything that can be used in production:
-> log-util


I think this is an "other vote" as defined by the voting protocol:

https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/voting-protocol/

[Vincent de Lau]

The bylaws are not very clear on this, but I would think an Implicit Approval would be sufficient here. My interpretation would be that a 1.0.0 release would require an Approval Vote, so there is enough room to intervene before publishing a 1.0.0 release.

While on the subject of renaming, it seems to me that this package should use the vendor `fig` instead of `psr`. Similarly, it should use the `Fig` namespace instead the `Psr`. See https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/. If you feel there is sufficient reason to keep these, I would think it would be wise to seek Implicit Approval as well, or leave it to the Approval Vote.

Regards,

Vincent de Lau

PHP-FIG Secretary

[Larry Garfield]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022, at 6:56 AM, Vincent de Lau wrote:
> The bylaws are not very clear on this, but I would think an Implicit
> Approval would be sufficient here. My interpretation would be that a
> 1.0.0 release would require an Approval Vote, so there is enough room
> to intervene before publishing a 1.0.0 release.
>
> While on the subject of renaming, it seems to me that this package
> should use the vendor `fig` instead of `psr`. Similarly, it should use
> the `Fig` namespace instead the `Psr`. See
> https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/. If you feel
> there is sufficient reason to keep these, I would think it would be
> wise to seek Implicit Approval as well, or leave it to the Approval
> Vote.
>
> Regards,
> Vincent de Lau
> PHP-FIG Secretary

Uitl packages and any other aux resources are required to use a Fig namespace:

https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/

No vote needed, that's just what is required.

Since this is a test-only package, I'd probably say log-test rather than log-util-test, but that's not a hill I'd die on. I am also OK with Implicit Approval. (So, I guess this is automatically approved unless someone from the CC asks for a vote within the next week.)

--Larry Garfield

[Ralf Lang]

I'm fine with either fig/log-util-test or fig/log-test. The latter is
shorter but still descriptive.

So after the waiting threshold we would need somebody with sufficient
access to the github organisation to rename the package - I can do the
composer metadata changes as required asap afterwards.

[Chuck Burgess]

+1 for fig/log-test...

CRB

[Ralf Lang]

Hello Vincent,

Am 03.08.2022 um 13:56 schrieb Vincent de Lau:
> The bylaws are not very clear on this, but I would think an Implicit
> Approval would be sufficient here. My interpretation would be that a
> 1.0.0 release would require an Approval Vote, so there is enough room
> to intervene before publishing a 1.0.0 release.
>
> While on the subject of renaming, it seems to me that this package
> should use the vendor `fig` instead of `psr`. Similarly, it should use
> the `Fig` namespace instead the `Psr`. See
> https://www.php-fig.org/bylaws/psr-naming-conventions/. If you feel
> there is sufficient reason to keep these, I would think it would be
> wise to seek Implicit Approval as well, or leave it to the Approval Vote.
>
> Regards,
> Vincent de Lau
> PHP-FIG Secretary
>

meanwhile the repo has been created as php-fig/log-test. The original
repo was kept as is until we actually have content for php-fig/log-util
as its home.
The composer name has been changed to fig/log-test and the namespace is
now Fig\\Log\\Tests - I did not change the last bit from the original.

Code passes PHPUnit 8.x and 9.x tests and the CI pipeline as
demonstrated https://github.com/php-fig/log-test/actions/runs/2860322214

Readme reflects the changes.

As originally planned, version 1.0.0 will only contain the tests and
aims to be compatible with psr/log 1.1.x - A later iteration will import
more test related code removed from the respective releases psr/log
2.x/3.x .

I think the repo is ready for an Approval Vote for version 1.0.0 started
by a member of the CC or Secretary.