Putting the projects into the same repository says nothing about linking releases.
A single Apache project can have multiple released artifacts. For instance, Mahout has mahout-math, mahout-collections, mahout-core, mahout-samsara. These releases only include their own source code. Yes, the commit stream on master would have both kinds of commits, but that is pretty non-fatal. If you want to isolate the projects you can have two threads, each with only a single set of source code, but that seems strange and obscure in this case. In Apache parlance, a sub-project usually refers to having a disjoint set of committers. That is discouraged, even though it often happens at least temporarily when new code bases are imported. Having multiple released artifacts is entirely a separate matter and is a good idea in many cases. On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Chris Hillery <[email protected]> wrote: > Apache-specific issues aside, I must admit it would be a bit disappointing > to have to join Hyracks and Asterix into a single project base. It would be > convenient, but convenience breeds apathy. We solve the cross-product > releasing issues for Asterix, which makes us less likely to buckle down and > solve them for other Hyracks consumers like VXQuery and hopefully others in > the future. > > Ceej > aka Chris Hillery > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see your point, that is true. In this case a release of just Hyracks > > would also be visible in the AsterixDB commit log and vice-versa. I'm not > > certain what this means (or if it matters) on the Apache front. Is > having a > > sub-project, that keeps its own version an unprecedented thing? > > > > Agreed about not rushing through with this though. I think we should > > certainly wait until after the upcoming 0.8.7 release to actually commit > to > > any of this. > > > > -Ian > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure about that. An Apache release will be a source code > release > > > and not a binary release. We can have binary "convenience artifacts", > but > > > the official release is the source release. > > > Usually source releases are tagged in revision control such that the > > > content of the source archive agrees with the tag. Now if we have all > the > > > code in a same repository, I am not sure how that will work. I'm not > > saying > > > that it doesn't work, but I'm not sure how to do that. > > > I think that it would be good to make a full Apache release of both > > > projects first, such that we have a clear understanding how to do that > > > before we change the project layout. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Till > > > > > > > > > On 8 May 2015, at 13:58, Ian Maxon wrote: > > > > > > Releasing would be the same, probably simpler actually. I suppose I > > >> haven't > > >> tried it so I can't be totally certain, but performing 'mvn release' > in > > a > > >> module directly doesn't do anything different than when it is run > from a > > >> higher-up pom as a submodule. Nothing would change if a user is > > dependent > > >> on a stable version of Hyracks, because they only ever see binary > > >> artifacts > > >> from Maven. 'hyracks' will still be called 'hyracks' and have the same > > >> coordinates in Maven. > > >> > > >> - Ian > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Till Westmann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hmm, and what do we do about the other dependents of Hyracks (e.g. > > >>> VXQuery)? > > >>> We had separate releases of Hyracks for those in the past. > > >>> How would releases (branching, tagging ...) work in that case? > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Till > > >>> > > >>> On 8 May 2015, at 13:17, Ian Maxon wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>>> An idea was brought up today in the meeting (I believe by Yingyi) > for > > >>>> solving the issues we have right now with maven project > > >>>> > > >>> interdependencies. > > >>> > > >>>> The idea is to just merge AsterixDB and Hyracks into one git > > repository, > > >>>> and to have them as separate maven projects with a top level pom > > joining > > >>>> them. We actually have part of this implemented already (in the tlp/ > > >>>> > > >>> folder > > >>> > > >>>> a pom.xml exists for this). Doing this change would eliminate the > > >>>> > > >>> necessity > > >>> > > >>>> of the topic field hack in Gerrit, as well as ensure changes in > > Hyracks > > >>>> don't break AsterixDB. > > >>>> > > >>>> I went ahead and made a branch that has this change implemented, > > please > > >>>> take a look at > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > > https://github.com/parshimers/incubator-asterixdb/tree/imaxon/hyracks-merge > > >>> > > >>>> to get an idea of what's proposed. I merged the Hyracks repository > > into > > >>>> a > > >>>> subtree of the asterix repository- so all of the commit history is > > >>>> merged > > >>>> properly. I think we would want to not commit this change through > > >>>> Gerrit, > > >>>> because if we did all of the Hyracks commit history would not be > > >>>> > > >>> included, > > >>> > > >>>> which would be unfortunate. > > >>>> > > >>>> - Ian > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >
