On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 16:47 -0700, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >> What do you mean by "but not have multiple versions for 0.8
> branch"?
>
> I mean it would live in trunk but only in trunk -- there would be no
> branches/0.8/drivers or branches/1.0/drivers.
Maybe I'm missing some svn-fu here, but how would you even do this?
Delete the directory after branching? Wouldn't merging forward to trunk
try to remove it there again?
>
> > Can't we keep the /drivers code in the trunk and just have separate
> Ant tasks for building the driver parts independent of the tasks for
> for the server?
>
> Right, this feels ideal to me. Otherwise the "right" way to handle it
> is to download a Cassandra stuff-the-driver-needs jar from the maven
> repo. I'd rather just have {cassandra} and {driver} build targets
> personally, from the same tree, rather than introducing this
> intermediate dependency.
The JDBC driver seems to be the only reason this is being brought up,
there wouldn't be much to discuss if you removed that from the equation.
None of the original reasons for moving the drivers in the first place
have changed.
I don't think the story here is any different than it would be for any
other project that depended on Cassandra like this, (i.e. it would be
unnecessarily difficult for them as well). Of course it will never be
as easy as treating it all like one big monolithic project, but it could
be a whole lot easier (for anyone) and if it makes sense that they be
treated separately (I feel strongly that it does), then I'd rather we
fix it the right way.
I realize that implicitly means that I've volunteered. :)
--
Eric Evans
eev...@rackspace.com
