> I'm still a bit confused as to what's the benefit in compiling with
jdk1.7 and then testing with jdk1.7 or jdk1.8
I meant two separate workflows for each JDK i.e.
Workflow1: Build against jdk1.7, and optionally run UTs and Dtests against
1.7
Workflow2: Build against jdk1.8, and run UTs and DTests
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:01 PM sankalp kohli wrote:
>
> Separate repo is in a majority so far. Please reply to this thread with
> your responses.
I think it makes sense for the code, project, and workflows to be
(de|loosely)-coupled, so the repo should be as well.
+1 for a separate repository
+1 separate repo. I think in-tree only works if you're *not* supporting
multiple versions and each sidecar release is directly tied to a
corresponding C* release. Considering this case is also completely
achievable in a separate repo anyway with minimal overhead we may as well
start that way and se
+1 for a separate repo
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 06:40, Michael Shuler wrote:
> +1 for a separate repository.
>
> Michael
>
> On 08/23/2018 07:30 PM, Murukesh Mohanan wrote:
> > FWIW, I think it's possible to merge in a separate repository into a
> > subdirectory while keeping git history, but I do
