On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 18:40 +0200, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Ellis
> wrote:
> > Sounds fine as far as it goes, but don't we want some concept of
> > branches/tags for driver releases too?
>
> Our idea so far (Eric can correct me if I'm wrong :)) was to con
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Sounds fine as far as it goes, but don't we want some concept of
> branches/tags for driver releases too?
Our idea so far (Eric can correct me if I'm wrong :)) was to consider
the drivers directory as the 'trunk' for drivers, and create bran
Sounds fine as far as it goes, but don't we want some concept of
branches/tags for driver releases too?
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> Sylvain and I have been discussing release issues while here at
> buzzwords, and some of the issues are related to drivers. Not
> surprisi
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 03:08, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> Sylvain and I have been discussing release issues while here at
> buzzwords, and some of the issues are related to drivers. Not
> surprising since that's a new concept for us, and there wasn't much
> thought given to the current organization.
>
Sylvain and I have been discussing release issues while here at
buzzwords, and some of the issues are related to drivers. Not
surprising since that's a new concept for us, and there wasn't much
thought given to the current organization.
Because the CQL drivers are independently versioned and cap
