I'm also in favor of this idea (+1). Just to figure out,*splitting the language SDKs to separate releases and releasing separately.* : Concretely, is this means that there will be one github repo for each language (So 10 avro github repo); or is there any other "github" trick to manage separate release in same repo ?
Le mer. 4 janv. 2023 à 20:58, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> a écrit : > Thanks, Ryan! > > I have forgotten about the previous discussion! > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:15 PM Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello! We've started and stopped this discussion a couple of times -- > > but it ends up getting a bit bogged down in details, and there's so > > much going on that we end on sticking with the status quo! > > > > I would love to have this discussion again though and come to a > > conclusion. We could be doing quite a few things better, and changing > > our release strategy to a more flexible and modern style is likely > > going to make things easier for us in the long run. > > > > Among the related topics are: > > > > 1) Moving to more recognizable semantic versioning (i.e., dropping the > > "1." prefix in Avro). > > > > I am +1 for this! > > > > 2) Versioning the website and specification for releases. > > > > This is discussed at > https://lists.apache.org/thread/29mzv23z3940sxmchj7c7s9ozq0fb874 > But with the idea of splitting the SDKs releases it becomes harder to say > how exactly to version the documentation. > > > > 3) Supporting N minor releases simultaneously (where N is more than 1) > > > > I still think that 2 major releases is the best we could do with the > current number of active developers. > > > > 4) Splitting the language SDKs to separate releases and releasing > > separately. > > > > +1 > > > > > > Just for reference, I always like to link the thread to the last time > > we discussed (which links to the previous years). There's quite a few > > good points! I don't think we can ever really satisfy everyone, but > > we can definitely make changes. > > > > Maybe a good way to get to consensus would be to list the possible > > actions we could take, and prioritize them? > > > > Shall we have an official VOTE for those ? > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up and HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody! > > > > Ryan > > > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rybf7vb514mtkr7swfld7b06g1kb2r3t > > "[DISCUSS] Releases, versioning and lifecycle" > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:05 PM Oscar Westra van Holthe - Kind > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 at 08:15, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > [...] the problem is the availability of active maintainers. > > > > > > This is another issue, and important too IMHO. I'm just not certain > > there's > > > a solution though. > > > I'll raise another thread if I ever have ideas to tackle it. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Oscar > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ✉️ Oscar Westra van Holthe - Kind <[email protected]> > > >
