Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

+1 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Dick Cavender wrote: > +1 > > > On 7/2/2015 4:58 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Le 7/2/2015 2:06 PM, Kirk Lund a écrit : >> >>> Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in >>> com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling u

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

+1 On 7/2/2015 4:58 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: +1 Le 7/2/2015 2:06 PM, Kirk Lund a écrit : Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like something that would be reasonable to discuss on general@incubato

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

+1 Le 7/2/2015 2:06 PM, Kirk Lund a écrit : Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like something that would be reasonable to discuss on general@incubator. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Schuch

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

+1 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:36 PM, William Markito wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in > > com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like > > something that would be reas

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

+1 On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in > com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like > something that would be reasonable to discuss on general@incubator. > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:3

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like something that would be reasonable to discuss on general@incubator. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > Hey, if we can do this then we

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

Hey, if we can do this then we should leave versions of exception classes in com.gemstone.gemfire so we can send them to old GemFire clients! If we do that and swizzle package names in DataSerializer maybe we'll be able to support migration of GemFire clients to Geode. That would facilitate f

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:25 PM, William Markito wrote: > My reading of that is it's specifically for incubation, which indeed is not > required based on this thread > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=dev@geode.incubator.apache.org&q=subject:%22Package+renaming%5C%3F%22&o=newest&f=1 > > >

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

My reading of that is it's specifically for incubation, which indeed is not required based on this thread . But for leaving incubation and becoming a TLP my understanding was

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > I just want to clarify that the reason we are planning to repackage is > because of this policy: > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging > > ...which states that repackaging is recommended, but not mandated. Is there > a dif

Re: Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

Keeping the existing packaging would make it a lot easier for GemFire users to move to Geode. They wouldn't have to rewrite all of their client apps. Le 7/2/2015 9:57 AM, Kirk Lund a écrit : I just want to clarify that the reason we are planning to repackage is because of this policy: http:/

Repackaging src code to org.apache.geode

I just want to clarify that the reason we are planning to repackage is because of this policy: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#repackaging ...which states that repackaging is recommended, but not mandated. Is there a different source that states that it's mandated? -Kirk