Not sure if ASF has, or uses the same concept, but this could easily be handled with a GitHub "organization" encompassing 1 or more repos (for example... https://github.com/reactor).
Of course, you could organize the source, and in particular, the Geode "modules" anyway you like, for example, as 1 repo. It's just more common/natural to use separate repos for independently releasable artifacts. In that way, the community does not seem as fragmented, rather organized into teams around particular concerns (aka modules/features). Native Client is perhaps the best example of this since it encompasses different tools and different languages but with a common "purpose". More food for thought. -j On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Currently our JIRA versions look like this: > > > > 1.0.0-incubating.M1 > > 1.0.0-incubating.M2 > > 1.0.0-incubating.M3 > > 1.1.0 > > > > That works great for the geode repo. However, what about the > geode-examples repo? I would like to set a ‘Fix version’ that matches the > version in [1]. Since the repos can release independently of each other, I > think we need a way to completely disambiguate versions like > ‘geode-examples-0.1’. We could also ask for a JIRA project for each repo. > Thoughts? > > > > More stuff: > > > > - GEODE-2318 didn’t get updated with commit logs from geode-examples. > Anyone know how to fix this? > > - Travis-CI is now running on geode-examples. If you notice problems > with PR’s or email notifications let me know. > > This is the slippery slope I was alluding to. If the repos, releases, > etc. are asynchronous > in the eyes of ASF it strongly suggests that communities are > asynchronous as well. Which > means you're really two separate ASF projects. Which may, very well, > be the case I just > wanted to point it out. > > Thanks, > Roman. > -- -John john.blum10101 (skype)
