On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Martin Kleppmann <[email protected]> wrote: > (1) We aim to do point releases regularly, e.g. 1 or 2 releases per month [ > ... ].
More frequent Avro releases would be great. I can't personally commit to increasing release cadence, as my availability is intermittent. But any committer can create releases. Configuring a machine so that all languages are built and tested takes a bit of time but isn't too difficult. I'd love to see someone else take on this task. > (2) If voting on releases so frequently is too much of a burden, > we could decouple the point version numbers for the different language > implementations, so that different languages can release independently [ ... ] This is technically feasible. Currently the first part of an Avro version indicates the Avro schema & encoding version, the second part indicates the API/runtime version, and the third the bugfix version. So in theory each language can increment the second and third parts independently. We might need to better advertise that, e.g., avro-java-1.7.7 works fine with avro-ruby-1.9.3, that only a match on the first digit is required for data compatibility. If we decide to go this way we need to reorganize sources into a trunk & branches per language, update build files accordingly, then have folks step up and volunteer to release each language. It would probably increase the overall effort spent releasing. (Once you have all the dependencies installed, creating a release for all languages isn't hard.) So, again, whether this works depends on the level of volunteer effort available. If enough folks volunteer for this approach then I'd be happy to see it implemented. Doug
