On 2/20/12 2:55 PM, Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Bongjae's commits this weekend gave me pause about the proper place
>> for these projects.
>>
>> 1) Core Grizzly's branching cycles will differ from how these
>> projects would typically evolve.
>> For example, Bonjae's recent commits (no fault of his own) were
>> made in the current master
>> which is for 2.3, but these same commits are relevant for 2.2.
>> 2) In most cases (please let me know if you disagree), there won't
>> need to be core framework
>> changes for these particular projects to evolve.
>> 3) Core release cycle is going to differ. If memcached isn't ready,
>> we don't want to hold up
>> the core release for it, nor do we want to perform a release
>> that pushes final versions of
>> these artifacts to maven when they aren't ready for prime time.
>>
>> I'd like to propose creating two new repositories (one for thrift and
>> the other for memcached)
>> and move the existing code there. Bonjgae can release 1.0 versions
>> (or whatever version he feels
>> is correct) when he feels they are properly baked depending on
>> whatever final version of Grizzly
>> is available within Maven.
>>
>> Thoughts? Comments?
> May be we can create just one repository for grizzly contributions
> like memcached, thrift, potentially protobufs etc?
As long as each 'project' is maintained separate, it should be fine.
>
> Thanks.
>
> WBR,
> Alexey.
>