Guys, has anybody checked with INFRA if we can have module structure? Denis?
--Yakov
>From our point of view option (3) makes the most sense (if it works for the
ASF, as Denis pointed out).
Option (2) implies too much overhead, which may not be worth it.
(1) is the least convenient approach for such independent projects as
Client libs, however it's clear where it comes from. So it
Regardless of the path taken, the sources have to be located in ASF
repositories since we agreed to contribute the clients to the Foundation.
Presently, I'm leaning towards the monolithic approach (1) because that's
just simpler for an ASF project.
The hybrid way (3.) can work out only if ASF INF
Vladimir, can you clarify your ideas from Apache projects standpoint?
Do you propose (1) to create new apache projects for every client (or for
all of them)
Or (2) move thin clients OUT of Apache ecosystem and simply host them on
Github?
I think none of these will fly with ASF.
I am strongly for
I would vote for single repository and the following release scheme: we build
and release everything, but deliver only that modules, which have actual
features / bugfixes, skipping other from release iteration until new changes
come into them.
Also, I’d propose versioning scheme, that will refl
Igniters,
Over the last year we saw dramatic increase in demand for lightweight thin
clients. We already have four: JDBC, ODBC, .NET, Java. In future we are
going to have even more: NodeJS, PHP, Python, Go, whatever. I'd like to
start a discussion on how are we going to host them. There are severa
