Hi Ryan and Alexey,
I agreed with your opinions. And I would like to follow your decisions.
Thanks.
PS) Maybe it seems that GrizzlyMemcached is just completed. Zookeeper
integration was the last work which I had planned. :-)
Regards,
Bongjae Chang
On 2/21/12 8:33 AM, "Ryan Lubke" <ryan.lubke_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>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.
>>
>