> On Jan 19, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> I wonder if we're trying to overcomplicate things there. I don't see why
>> the geode-examples wouldn't use the same release schedule and version
>> number as geode.
>>
>> The C++ and .NET clients are also somewhat tied to the version of geode
>> that they support. As long as we can stick to a regular release cadence, It
>> seems like those clients couldn't also follow the same release schedule and
>> version numbers.
>
> Huge +1 to the above!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
Here’s a few examples of ASF projects with multiple repos for reference:
- ActiveMQ
https://github.com/apache?utf8=✓&q=activemq&type=&language=
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa#11160
- Nifi
https://github.com/apache?utf8=✓&q=nifi&type=&language=
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa#13460
I agree that semi-coordinated releases from a single project community make
sense—these are not independent things. Using lock-step versioning means we
release everything together, even for patch releases right? And I’m assuming
we would be doing separate release VOTE threads per repo.
Anthony
