I'm not sure that moving to a model where there are releases of individual components will increase the frequency of releases. There will still need to be a release manager for each component, and then there's a danger that the less maintained components will not get released at all.
I would rather continue to make the release process easier (Docker helps a lot) so that any committer can do it. We should be able to use the Docker work to run tests for all components with Jenkins to ensure that trunk is always in a releasable state. Where are we with the licensing issues? If we can get those worked out then I'd like to make a release (of all components). I'm +1 on moving to git. Cheers, Tom On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Ryan Blue <b...@cloudera.com> wrote: > It isn't just license problems, either. Releases that include all of the > languages can be blocked by bugs that need to be fixed in those languages > that are suggested during release planning. > > It is also necessary to make sure the older language implementations still > build and pass tests, which can mean, for example, installing php and > fixing any tests that currently break. Tom's recent work to port the build > to docker really helps this situation, but that took patches to > unmaintained implementations and will still require maintenance. > > I also disagree that it's always okay to re-release artifacts. Everything > is moving toward semantic versioning and I think that Avro should as well. > It is confusing to users to have an identical library released with a > version number that indicates a breaking change (though it appears not to > be by semver rules). > > Each language should adopt a release cadence that works for its > contributors so that those contributors are able to use their work in > timely releases. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we will see fewer contributions > because of the long release cycle we currently have. > > rb > > On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >> we are currently blocked on all releases because of licensing errors >> in under-maintained libraries. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1722 >> >> essentially Ryan and I slowly work our way through understanding each >> code base enough to do an evaluation and update things. >> >> It's been over 2 months now and it's a crappy situation to put our >> contributors in. >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Philip Zeyliger <phi...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I think it's always ok to re-release artifacts where nothing's changed. >>> So, how can you be blocked on another language's implementation if you >>> simply change the version number and re-release? >>> >>> -- Philip >>> >> > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc. >
