On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:27 AM, sblackmon <sblack...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On November 11, 2016 at 5:17:11 PM, Matt Franklin ( > m.ben.frank...@gmail.com(mailto:m.ben.frank...@gmail.com)) wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:12 PM Suneel Marthi wrote: > > > > > Why do we have 3 separate projects - Streams-master, Streams-project > and > > > streams-examples? > > > > > > The split between streams-master and streams-project has been there since > the project started, I think a legacy of how Rave was organized. The > feedback related to naming (that ‘master’ is confusing given the source > code is in git) makes sense to me. > > > > > > > > While it may make sense to keep streams-examples separate from the > others, > > > what's the reasoning behind keeping separate streams-master and > > > streams-project ? > > > > > > > Keeping the master pom separate from the rest of the project is fairly > > common within Apache. It allows things that don't change often to be > > centralized, such as developer info, etc. I am +1 for keeping it on a > > separate release cycle and +0 for integrating it back into the main code > > repo. > > > I’m -1 to separate release cycles - In reality we’re making a change to > the POM and/or the website, currently organized under streams-master, every > release cycle, and it would be confusing for developers if the versions > became disconnected. > I am -1 too for separate release cycles. I can see streams-master being modified/updated on a regular basis, given that most other dependency projects like Spark, Flink etc are on a 2 month minor release cycle and a 4 month major release cycle (on an average). In light of the above argument, I think it makes sense to merge streams-master and streams-project. > > I’m +1 to merging streams-master into streams-project - I can’t think of > any reasons that wouldn’t work, it would simplify build, tests, CI, > releases, and documentation. We could start by just moving the pom and > setting the parent of streams-project as a streams-parent.xml within the > streams-project module and putting everything except for <build> and > <plugins> in the parent. > > > > IMO, the examples definitely deserve their own repo and release cycle. > > > I agree. > > > > > Presently, we need to build, deploy, verify and validate 3 separate > > > projects for a release to pass, unless I am completely > > > misunderstanding/missing something here I feel streams-master and > > > streams-project can both be one project. > > > > > > > We don't have to release master unless there is a change to dist > > management, developers, etc. > > > In reality we’re making a change to the POM and/or the website, currently > organized under streams-master, every release cycle, and it would be > confusing for developers if the versions became disconnected. > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > >
