[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [virgo-dev] Virgo release branding
- From: Glyn Normington <gnormington@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:03:45 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
We discussed this topic at today's RT PMC call and there was a general consensus that the ability to release parts of a project without the overhead of putting those parts in subprojects would be very useful. Of course, the usual release review and IP log freezing process would be required.
So what else do we need to consider before we can agree this approach?
On 17 Jun 2011, at 17:09, Wayne Beaton wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 11:58 AM, Glyn Normington wrote:
>> I am wondering whether we'll need to put the IDE tooling, the bundlor
>> manifest generation tool, and each of the samples in their own
>> subprojects to give us the necessary versioning and release
>> flexibility. It *feels* mostly like make-work, but I guess it would be
>> easier to keep the IP logs straight that way. If, OTOH, there is a
>> slicker solution, I'm all ears as I have better things to do than
>> re-arrange project metadata... ;-)
> Like I said, we're set up for projects having a single release stream,
> so you may have to be patient with me and help me figure this out. I'd
> rather avoid make-work as well. I'd only recommend making a separate
> project if it makes sense for your committer base and community. At this
> point, I don't believe that this is the case. This may change with time.
> Had the PMC weighed in on this? They may have an opinion about the split
> between runtimes and tools.
> virgo-dev mailing list