Roman, I understand what you are saying. I think that since the build process between the Java Geode bits and the Native Geode bits will completely different it might help to have the separate. Until someone comes up with a good cross platform and cross language build tool that is commonly used in the development environments for each language these builds will remain different. Gradle sucks for building C++ and .NET sources and CMake sucks for building Java sources. Gradle is not popular in the native project world nor is CMake popular in the Java world. So making one build system to cover them all would just hurt everyone. Since the experience will be unique for each I feel that it justifies a separate repo but I can totally see the other side of just keeping it all together.
I too am worried about being isolated but I think as long as it is just the repo we should be fine. Thanks, jake On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:14 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > Here's my own, personal minority report: I think that a separate repo > will complicate your build and release process and will fracture your > nascent community. That said... > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > Mark, > > > > Looks like we have lots of votes for your separate repo idea. What do we > > need to do to get that going? > > This is a self-managing thing. Here's the tool: > https://reporeq.apache.org/ > > > On that note too, do you know who we need to ping to get a build going? > > Did I mention complications to build and release process? ;-) > > At any rate -- there's nobody to ping -- it'll be you Jacob (or whoever > else is signing up to hack on the Native client). Mark can give you > Jenkins karma tho: > https://wiki.apache.org/general/Jenkins#How_do_I_get_an_account > > > I would suggest we target Linux first since it is the easiest. The tools > > necessary can be found in the src/BUILDING.md file. > > That's very much up to whoever is doing the actual work, but it sounds > reasonable. > > Thanks, > Roman. >
