+1 The only thing to keep in mind is that versions are statement regarding API stability (aka semantic versioning). It is easy to forget about these things in a monorepo since you can fix all the breaking changes in the PR they got introduced. So whoever cuts the release must account for that and adjust the version numbers accordingly. I think we're likely counting up versions in roughly the same speed in the end (not a con, just a thought).
On January 4, 2019 9:37:33 AM GMT+01:00, "Krisztián Szűcs" <szucs.kriszt...@gmail.com> wrote: >Agree, +1 > >On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:49 PM Andy Grove <andygrov...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> +1 from me. Keeping the code in a single repo makes sense but no need >to >> artificially keep versions numbers consistent between the sub-crates. >> >> Andy. >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:28 PM Chao Sun <sunc...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is related to an earlier email I sent regarding separating the >Rust >> > implementation into sub crates. See some early discussions in this >PR >> > [1]. As we could have multiple crates for the project in future >(e.g., >> > arrow, parquet, orc, gandiva), I'm wondering whether we can keep >> different >> > versions for these crates. For instance, the parquet crate use to >have >> > version 0.4.2 before merging into arrow, and I think it's better to >> > maintain the continuity there. >> > >> > Another thing is about release cycles. I understand that it is best >to >> keep >> > the release cycles for these crates the same as arrow's. However, >it's >> > possible in future that we may need a minor release for a critical >bug >> fix >> > of a particular crate, and to follow the overall release process >for that >> > seems like an overkill and not quite feasible. >> > >> > Therefore, I'm proposing to: >> > 1. allow different versions for sub-crates. >> > 2. follow the overall release schedule, but maintain the >flexibility of >> > doing separate releases when necessary. >> > >> > Thought? >> > >> > Chao >> > >> > [1]: >https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3291#issuecomment-450950275 >> > >>
