river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Thompson <br...@systap.com>
Subject Re: Release 3.0
Date Thu, 03 Sep 2015 18:18:05 GMT
Spinning off a 2.2.2 modularization effort to me sounds like it could
create some confusion and undermine the 3.0 release.  I'd rather focus the
modularization effort into 3.0.  Modularization is a huge pain and the
payoff is long term.  Rather not pay it twice.

Yes. Big ant projects with checked in binaries.  Exactly that model.

We are managing to keep evolution running in parallel with modularization.

One thing that made life easier was switching from SVN to git.  This made
the merges much easier to manage.

Although a recent git convert, I would be very much in favor of switching
to git for river (after a release).

Bryan



----
Bryan Thompson
Chief Scientist & Founder
SYSTAP, LLC
4501 Tower Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
bryan@systap.com
http://blazegraph.com
http://blog.bigdata.com <http://bigdata.com>
http://mapgraph.io

Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performance
graph database that supports both RDF/SPARQL and Tinkerpop/Blueprints
APIs.  Blazegraph is now available with GPU acceleration using our disruptive
technology to accelerate data-parallel graph analytics and graph query.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and its contents and attachments are
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and are confidential or
proprietary to SYSTAP. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
dissemination or copying of this email or its contents or attachments is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of the email
and its contents and attachments.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 3, 2015, at 203PM, Bryan Thompson <bryan@systap.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think that we could:
> >
> > 1. Release 3.0 on the shortest path consistent with appropriate QA.
> > 2a. Refactor the project structure into modules
> > 2b. Extend the project into interesting use case areas (IoT was discussed
> > recently).
> >
> > 2a and 2b could occur in parallel.
>
> Generally agree (might disagree a bit on 2a and 2b concurrently). Big
> question for me though is as we release 3.0 (hopefully by end of 3Q - so
> this month) as a release candidate, and as we do bug fixes to approach a
> release, we’ll have to maintain both monolithic and modularized projects.
> Could be a pain.
>
> Do we also spin off a 2.2.2 modularization effort?
>
> >
> > A release with a project modular structure refactor would probably be
> > another major release (4.0).  It will change the way people consume the
> > code.  But it can happen as soon as the project has been modularized.  (I
> > am going through this modular project pain right now in blazegraph.)
> >
>
> I’ve just been through this with 4 major projects I’m working with
> currently. I transitioned them from monolithic Ant projects with checked in
> binaries, to nimble Gradle projects that use great automation and
> dependency management. It was tough, but in the end totally worth it. Good
> luck :)
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message