On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:00:23PM +1000, William Brown wrote: > My vote is to merge them. I came to this decision because I believe that > this will make development against multiple branches easier with regard > to testing and backport of patches. For example, we'll know that lib389 > that's inside of 1.3.7 will *always* work with that release, even if we > have improved in 1.4.x etc. > > We also are developing new CLI and admin tools, and these are often > tightly linked to a version of Directory Server. I think that it's > easier for us as developers to have this specific linking, than trying > to spend large amounts of time making something generic that works for > all versions. > > For example, this would make the CI workflow much simpler as we just get > "389-ds-base" and it's a self contained test suite and admin system. No > need to get the "matching pairs" as the separate workflow would require. > I agree. I vote for merging too. Also, besides all stuff you and Viktor have mentioned, while developing something for lib389 (some new feature or fixing the old code) I feel a natural need to fix 389-ds-base according to my changes.
Thank you for bringing up the topic! :) And for all the info you've structured. Simon > > Thanks, I look forward to the discussion and various inputs to the this > topic. > > -- > Sincerely, > > William Brown > Software Engineer > Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane > > _______________________________________________ > 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
