On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds fine as far as it goes, but don't we want some concept of > branches/tags for driver releases too?
Our idea so far (Eric can correct me if I'm wrong :)) was to consider the drivers directory as the 'trunk' for drivers, and create branches and tags for them alongside the cassandra ones. Truth is, I even think that consider the drivers as a whole is not granular enough. It's unlikely the different drivers will move at the same pace. *But*, we believe that moving the drivers up one level is at least a first step towards something better than the status quo. -- Sylvain > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: >> >> Sylvain and I have been discussing release issues while here at >> buzzwords, and some of the issues are related to drivers. Not >> surprising since that's a new concept for us, and there wasn't much >> thought given to the current organization. >> >> Because the CQL drivers are independently versioned and capable of >> releasing on their own timelines, the current location in SVN is >> suboptimal. There are a number of reasons why, not least of which is >> that it sets the expectation that the correct version of a driver is >> whatever corresponds to the release version of Cassandra. >> >> So, we'd like to move the drivers sub-directory up one level, making it >> look something like the following: >> >> |- branches >> |- tags >> |- site >> |- drivers >> | |- java >> | |- py >> | |- txpy >> |- trunk >> >> There are a few additional implied changes here as well, for example the >> JDBC driver will need its own build, and Cassandra's will need some >> minor changes as well (JDBC driver tests, release artifacts, etc). >> >> Does anyone object to this? >> >> >> -- >> Eric Evans >> eev...@rackspace.com >> >> > > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support > http://www.datastax.com >
