Hi everybody, I think this should be a discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of separating the code into distinct repositories from a development point of view. So I agree with Stephan that we should not divide the community by creating separate groups of committers. Also the discussion about independent releases is not be strictly related to the decision, IMO.
I see a few pros and cons for splitting the code base into separate repositories which (I think) haven't been mentioned before: pros: - IDE setup will be leaner. It is not necessary to compile the whole code base to run a test after switching a branch. cons: - developing libraries features that require changes in the core / APIs become more time consuming due to back-and-forth between code bases. However, I think this is not very often the case. Aljoscha has good points as well. Many of the build issues could be solved by different build profiles and configurations. Best, Fabian 2017-02-22 14:59 GMT+01:00 Gábor Hermann <m...@gaborhermann.com>: > @Stephan: > > Although I tried to raise some issues about splitting committers, I'm > still strongly in favor of some kind of restructuring. We just have to be > conscious about the disadvantages. > > Not splitting the committers could leave the libraries in the same > stalling status, described by Till. Of course, dedicating current > committers as shepherds of the libraries could easily resolve the issue. > But that requires time from current committers. It seems like trade-offs > between code quality, speed of development, and committer efforts. > > From what I see in the discussion about ML, there are many people willing > to contribute as well as production use-cases. This means we could and > should move forward. However, the development speed is significantly slowed > down by stalling PRs. The proposal for contributors helping the review > process did not really work out so far. In my opinion, either code quality > (by more easily accepting new committers) or some committer time > (reviewing/merging) should be sacrificed to move forward. As Till has > indicated, it would be shameful if we let this contribution effort die. > > Cheers, > Gabor > >
