Ian and I just spoke for about an hour about all of this. Reluctantly and with some reservations, I'm going to change my stance here. It seems like merging the repositories may be the least available evil after all.
This basically comes down to Maven and its Kool-aid. Once you're committed to Maven, if you try to go against its ideas of How Things Must Be, it will punish you. But if you contort yourself to do what it wants, it will reward you. Maven does not wish to support our development methodology, but by keeping the projects in the same Maven project, we can pretend we're doing what Maven wants - at least as far as Hyracks + Asterix is concerned. Ian and I did work out mostly an idea of a way we could continue to work around Maven and keep the projects separate, but at the end of the day it was adding a number of intrusive and error-prone steps to the most common development path. Ultimately Ian convinced me that it was better to optimize the common case. I still have concerns that by greasing Maven like this, we'll make it too easy to accidentally do "bad things" between Hyracks and Asterix. But those concerns are a bit ephemeral, while the issues impacting the common case of cross-project development are real and frequent. Ian is also working on a code-review checklist of things to watch out for to hopefully prevent unintended badness. Merging the repos isn't something we can flip the switch on, so the thought at the moment was to get a release out the door, and then work out how to proceed. In particular, it would be best to have as few Hyracks changes in flight on Gerrit during the transition. Till, Ildar, Mike, or anyone else - do you wish to discuss further? As I said I'm not exactly excited by this prospect, but all the alternatives I can see all seem to have a worse pro/con ratio... Ceej aka Chris Hillery On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > The issue is though, that we have many branches that may be under review > for merge, and they all appear the same to Maven (i.e. SNAPSHOT suffixed). > We do also want to publish them in a sense, in that any branch (not just > master) should be easily obtained on another machine without a lot of fuss. > There's no way to say (nor should there be) in Maven, "depend on the tip of > this branch". Right now this has to be overcome in a weird way in the CI > server, by giving it a particular Hyracks change to check out, which it > then installs locally in Maven. Whenever there is a change that crosses > AsterixDB into Hyracks, we have to tie the commits together in a sense. > > - Ian > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't see this as a fight against maven. Maven says that if you want > to > > publish, you have to have an immutable version with a solid version > number > > that is comparable. If you don't want to publish to the world, then you > > use the snapshot or similar local caching methods. > > > > You are saying you have versions that you don't want to really publish > but > > want to use for development. That fits the second case for maven. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >My not-totally-thought-out suggestion for problem #2 would be to > > > not "solve" it at all, and simply state that the tip of Asterix > requires > > > the latest tip of Hyracks to build. That's the way we all develop code > on > > > our local machines anyway, as far as I know. If there are no outside > > > clients that we have to be concerned about between releases, doesn't > this > > > solve the problem? > > > > > > > > > This is what we have today. AsterixDB already relies on the Hyracks > > > snapshot release, and in the developer instructions we tell folks to > > > install Hyracks first by checking it out and doing 'mvn install'. > > > > > > The issue with this is that it makes build+test hard, because we are > > > fighting against maven when we do this. Maven wants to resolve the > > > dependencies based on version, so when we don't have versions that > convey > > > the actual dependencies that are present (e.g. between git revisions), > it > > > gets messy. One has to somehow use a side channel to convey the true > > > dependence (like the topic field in Gerrit). > > > > > > >As a side note, the original proposal to merge the codebases would > > "solve" > > > [sweep under the rug] problem #1 for Asterix, at the cost of quite > > possibly > > > making it worse for VXQuery. > > > > > > Right now VXQuery and Pregelix depend on a stable Hyracks version, so > > > changes in Hyracks master could require changes in VXQuery or Pregelix > in > > > order for them to use later versions. This could happen (or have > already > > > happened) today, without any notice until someone tried to upgrade the > > > versions. Whether or not Hyracks and AsterixDB happen to live in one > git > > > repository or two has no effect on that. The reason for it is simply > that > > > we have chosen not to test all projects upstream of Hyracks at the > > > granularity of commits, and we can change that either way. > > > > > > - Ian > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Chris Hillery <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think maybe part of the reason we're having a tough time figuring > > this > > > > out is that we're conflating two different problems. > > > > > > > > 1. We want to ensure that changes to Hyracks don't break Asterix, > > > VXQuery, > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > 2. We fairly often need to make related changes in Hyracks and > Asterix > > > that > > > > "go together", ie, Asterix won't build/work with the new change until > > it > > > > can see the corresponding Hyracks change. > > > > > > > > Those really are completely different problems and may well need > > > different > > > > solutions. > > > > > > > > IMHO, the first one is "easy" [*] to solve via testing. Either we add > > > > proper API testing to Hyracks and ensure Asterix/VXQuery/etc only use > > > > proper APIs, and/or we add Asterix/VXQuery/etc builds and tests to > the > > > > testing jobs on Jenkins. > > > > > > > > The second problem is where we get into the trickiness of Maven > > releases > > > > vs. Apache releases. This is why I asked about the actual > requirements > > > and > > > > audience. My not-totally-thought-out suggestion for problem #2 would > be > > > to > > > > not "solve" it at all, and simply state that the tip of Asterix > > requires > > > > the latest tip of Hyracks to build. That's the way we all develop > code > > on > > > > our local machines anyway, as far as I know. If there are no outside > > > > clients that we have to be concerned about between releases, doesn't > > this > > > > solve the problem? > > > > > > > > Obviously when it comes time to make a real Hyracks (or Asterix) > > release > > > > we'll need to do a little extra work to ensure those *released* > > codebases > > > > build together. That might mean that we usually need to make Hyracks > > and > > > > Asterix releases at the same time, and I don't know whether that's > now > > > > harder to achieve in the incubator world. > > > > > > > > (As a side note, the original proposal to merge the codebases would > > > "solve" > > > > [sweep under the rug] problem #1 for Asterix, at the cost of quite > > > possibly > > > > making it worse for VXQuery. It would sort of "solve" problem #2 for > > > > Asterix as well, because it would physically enforce the same tip-tip > > > rule > > > > I'm proposing above. I still believe that we can solve both problems > in > > > > other strictly superior ways, however.) > > > > > > > > Ceej > > > > aka Chris Hillery > > > > > > > > [*] - not actually easy. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Mike Carey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > It feels to me (as one who is completely naive about much of this > > > stuff) > > > > > like we need two levels of "releases", one level for the outside > > world > > > > (the > > > > > public releases that users might pick up) and a different internal > > > level > > > > > for the development process (where we essentially want to have > > > > > tagged/extra-tested checkpoints and want to be able to manage in a > > > > careful > > > > > way the cross-dependencies from/to other related development > > processes > > > X > > > > - > > > > > e.g., for X = VXQuery, AsterixDB, and someday Pregelix). When we > do > > an > > > > > official signed release of anything, we'd need to do one for the > DAG > > of > > > > > things - so there might be sync'ed "multireleases" (for Hyacks and > > then > > > > for > > > > > X). Does that make any sense and/or give anyone more thoughts > about > > > how > > > > we > > > > > might achieve that...? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > MIke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/8/15 2:08 AM, Chris Hillery wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> If not, it may be worth taking a step back and asking what exactly > > the > > > > >> problem is. I understand the general rule that "we don't want > > Asterix > > > to > > > > >> be > > > > >> broken", but what precisely does that mean? Is it acceptable that > > the > > > > tip > > > > >> of the Asterix source branch is only guaranteed to build against > the > > > tip > > > > >> of > > > > >> the Hyracks branch, for example? If not, why not? What audience > are > > we > > > > >> required to keep things working for at the source level, and what > > > > >> expectations do they have? > > > > >> > > > > >> Ceej > > > > >> aka Chris Hillery > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Chris Hillery > <[email protected] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> So, if we pushed these not-releases to the Nexus repo running at > > UCI, > > > > and > > > > >>> devs pulled from there in preference to "official" repos, that > > would > > > > >>> solve > > > > >>> the problem? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Ceej > > > > >>> aka Chris Hillery > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ted Dunning < > [email protected] > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If it is pushed to any wider audience than roughly the dev@ > list, > > > it > > > > is > > > > >>>> a release. That definitely includes maven central. Artifacts in > > > maven > > > > >>>> are > > > > >>>> convenience binaries and this not a release but they should be > > > > >>>> traceable to > > > > >>>> an exact source release. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 19:10, Till Westmann <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Hmm, good point. It doesn’t have to. One question might be if > we > > > can > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> push it to some maven repository, if it’s not an official > release. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> But I think that should also be fine as long as we don’t push > it > > > to a > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> repository that claims to contain official releases. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Some mentor input might be helpful on this as well :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>> Till > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Ildar Absalyamov < > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Does version bump always mean full-fledged Apache release? We > > need > > > > the > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> former just to resolve compile time dependencies. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On Jun 7, 2015, at 18:49, Till Westmann <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> In principle I agree with this, but creating a new release > will > > > be > > > > a > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> little more involved that just running maven, when we do this > at > > > the > > > > >>>> ASF. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> To publish a new release we will have to vet and vote on the > > > release. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> This takes at least 72 hours in the best case if we’re a TLP, > > the > > > > >>>> first > > > > >>>> release candidate is great, and have enough people to vote. > While > > > > we’re > > > > >>>> still in the incubator, releasing will take a little longer as > we > > > also > > > > >>>> have > > > > >>>> to get enough votes for the release in the incubator. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> As I proposed earlier, it would be really good to go through > the > > > full > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> release process once, before we decide how to structure our > > > > processes > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>> infrastructure. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>> Till > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ildar Absalyamov < > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> I am with Chris on repository separation and I think that the > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> solution to the issue of Hyracks commits breaking Asterix > build > > > is > > > > >>>> using > > > > >>>> release Hyracks versions instead of snapshot ones. Yes, that > will > > > > >>>> create a > > > > >>>> frequent Hyracks releases (we will have to release it each time > > > there > > > > >>>> is a > > > > >>>> change which spans both Hyracks & Asterix) and we have abandoned > > > this > > > > >>>> practice a while ago, but it seems that’s the only way to > separate > > > > >>>> projects > > > > >>>> logically. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Here are few examples to clear the picture. In all examples > > Hyracks > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> version is 4.5.6-Snapshot, Asterix version is 1.2.3-Snapshot > > (but > > > > it > > > > >>>> depends on previous release version Hyracks 4.5.5): > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> 1) The changes span both Asterix & Hyracks. > > > > >>>>>>>> First make sure that Asterix could depend on Hyracks > > > > 4.5.6-Snapshot > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> without API conflicts & switch Asterix dependency to > > > > 4.5.6-Snapshot. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Submit Gerrit review, once it is done as a part of git-asf > script > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> commit changes, bump Hyracks version to 4.5.6, make Asterix > > > depend > > > > >>>> on 4.5.6 > > > > >>>> and bump Hyracks to 4.5.7-Snapshot right after. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> 2) The changes are located only in Hyracks. Regular review and > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> commit (with snapshot version) without any version bump. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> 3) The changes are located only in Asterix. Regular review and > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> commit (with snapshot version) without any version bump. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> In this scenario Hyracks commit can never make Asterix build > fail > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> (since it depends on a stable release) and it’s the > > > responsibility > > > > >>>> of the > > > > >>>> first person, whose commits spans both repos to make sure that > the > > > > >>>> changes > > > > >>>> in snapshot Hyracks version are properly merged. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Regarding the Yingyi’s issue with Gerrit topics: could we > modify > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> git-gerrit script so it would submit both Asterix & Hyracks > > > reviews > > > > >>>> (granted that the latter is needed), and link them together, > > setting > > > > the > > > > >>>> proper topic? Gerrit seems to have API for changing that, right? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 15:45, Mike Carey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Just a quick high-level note from our nearest equivalent of > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> pointy-haired Dilbert guy (aka me): What would be nice is > to > > > have > > > > >>>> Hyracks > > > > >>>> changes kick off tests of all "supported client projects" - > > > AsterixDB, > > > > >>>> VXQuery, maybe also Pregelix, IMRU, and possibly others in the > > > future. > > > > >>>> I > > > > >>>> don't think we'll ever prevent such downstream things from being > > > > broken > > > > >>>> unless we run their tests - so I would suggest that we need a > > > > mechanism > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>> keep Hyracks changes from being permitted to happen without > > > verifying > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> ongoing integrity of all "blessed" (priority 1) affected > > > projects.... > > > > >>>> We > > > > >>>> could have an agreed upon list of such projects and tests for > > > each.... > > > > >>>> It > > > > >>>> would be nice to have a "quick check" (hello world still works, > > > basics > > > > >>>> are > > > > >>>> working) that was synchronously blocking of such changes, and at > > > > least a > > > > >>>> daily verification that all's totally well (AFAWK) for them all. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Not sure how this affects the still two-sided discussion... > :-) > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >>>>>>>>> Mike > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On 6/2/15 10:00 AM, Chris Hillery wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Yingyi Bu < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> In my opinion, merging the repository doesn't break the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> separation of > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> hyracks and asterixdb, because the dependencies are controlled > by > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> mvn pom > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> files. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> That wasn't the separation I was talking about. I meant > > API > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> separation. As > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> it is now, when we make a change to both Asterix and Hyracks, > we > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> are forced > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to consider the API implications, or at least they are put out > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> there in a > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> very clear way that we need to look at. If we merge them, > people > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> will > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> (rightly) treat the whole thing as one product, and there will > be > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> no brakes > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> on making wide-ranging API changes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> (As an aside: I don't trust Maven's pom files to do a good > > job > > > > of > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> keeping > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> the dependency management clean. In fact I trust it to do > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> precisely the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> opposite, by making it both easier to screw up the dependencies > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and harder > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to update them in future.) > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Again, my point is this: If we truly believe that Hyracks > > is a > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> re-usable > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> component, it should be treated as such from source to build to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> delivery. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> By merging in Asterix, we are saying that Asterix is "more > equal" > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> than > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> others Hyracks clients, to the point that we're tacitly willing > > to > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> break > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> those other clients in favor of simplifying Asterix > development. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> If that is > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> a fair and true statement, well, then, sure, let's merge them. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 1) It forces those hyracks-only changes to pass asterixdb > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> regression > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> tests. Currently hyracks-only change are not verified by > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> asterixdb tests. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> This is a good point, I will admit. However, I think this same > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> goal can be > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> met in other ways. My strong preference would be to create a > set > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of true > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> API tests inside of Hyracks, which both document and test the > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> external > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hyracks API. That will make API-breaking changes in future much > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> easier to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> spot, and also make it clear when Asterix is using internal > APIs > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> that it > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> should not. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2) On my local machine, I don't need to always install > > > hyracks > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and then > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> verify asterixdb from time to time. Especially, switching > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> branches seems > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> painful because the installed hyracks snapshot is overwritten > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from time to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> time. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't tried working on multiple Hyracks branches at > > the > > > > same > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> time, so I > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> haven't experienced this. This seems like a working method > error, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> though. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> If you're working with two things that are "the same version" > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> (even if > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> that's a snapshot version), you'll need to use separate Maven > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> repositories > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to install them. In fact, merging the two git repositories > would > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> do nothing > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> to fix this problem, will it? If the proposal is to put the two > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> source > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> repositories in the same git repo but otherwise leave them > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> untouched, then > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> nothing would change in the build process. It's possible I'm > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> missing > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> something there, though. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 3) I only need to make one code review request and one > > > jenkins > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> job. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Currently I need to manually change the topic of my asterixdb > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> gerrit CL > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> every time before I update my hyracks CL, and then manually > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> schedule > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> jenkins to run a new asterixdb job. If I forget to schedule > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> jenkins > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> job, the asterixdb CL is still shown to be "verified by > jenkins". > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This is a problem, but it's a problem in commit > > validation, > > > > not > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> source. Modifying the source to work around these issues is > still > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a bad > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> idea IMHO. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The "change-topic" issue could be fixed with a bit of > > > > development > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> work > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> (have the topic point to a change, rather than a specific > > patchset > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> change, so you only need to set it once, for instance). > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> As for manually scheduling Asterix Jenkins jobs, that > sounds > > > > like > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it's only > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> a problem where your Hyracks change breaks an existing public > > API. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> That > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> would be obviated by having true API testing inside of Hyracks, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> which is > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> something that we should have regardless of any decisions about > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> source > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> locations. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> In summary / repeating myself again: yes, we have some > > > problems > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> because > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hyracks and Asterix are in seperate repositories. But those > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> problems are > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> pointing out true issues with our development and processes. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Merging the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> repositories isn't fixing those problems, it's sweeping them > > under > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the rug. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Long term we would be much better off to identify, isolate, and > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> fix the > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> problems themselves. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ceej > > > > >>>>>>>>>> aka Chris Hillery > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > >>>>>>>> Ildar > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Best regards, > > > > >>>>>> Ildar > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
