On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> 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.
An interesting thing to note is that despite multiple repos they still release a single source artifact: https://www.apache.org/dist/activemq/5.13.5/ https://www.apache.org/dist/nifi/1.1.1/ Thanks, Roman.
