Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote: On 08/29/12 10:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: Looking over the lack of activity within this project, it's obvious (at least to me), that maybe its day is done. Should I call a vote to move C++ to the Attic? Or is there someone who feels that the project should still exist *and* is willing to stand as chair? Hi Jim, The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. The issue is that I'm not seeing any real activity on any of the mailing lists... I personally have a renewed interest in the implementation and am in the process of reviving my apache account with the intention of being a constant presence here, and I hope I will be able to contribute as well. I am not sure if anyone reviewed the patches volunteered by Stefan yet, or the changes in forks elsewhere, but I am currently looking at that, too. Good to know!
Re: New chair and/or attic
I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. Will Apache consider passing along some/all of it's CLA granted rights/additional permissions to another foundation that hosts open source projects? or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) ./C
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 06:38, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Liviu Nicoaranikko...@hates.ms wrote: The discussion back in February showed that, even though committers have not spent much time lately contributing new code to it, there is an active review of the activity occurring on the mailing list and people have volunteered time to at least review outside contributions. As Stefan remarked, putting it in the Attic pretty much closes the activity around it, as little as it is. The issue is that I'm not seeing any real activity on any of the mailing lists... And probably, even with the stated interest, the activity will continue to stay low a while. FWIW, I have spent my past few days catching up with the changes since '08 and refreshing on the build and test infrastructure, etc. Not much of a mailing list activity generator. Liviu
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 06:48, C. Bergström wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework for STDCXX to function in as well as an infrastructure for its daily activities. All in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) It can't be explained. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/30/12 08:56, C. Bergström wrote: On 08/30/12 07:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework [...] in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. I disagree that the recent actions have fostered positive growth in the project. 1) They fired the previous PMC - who was by far the most invested and dedicated person to the project. I don't care if he missed some reports or had a few flippant comments - I think it was pretty stupid (I mean he's part of the C++ standard committee) Again, according to their principles on what is and what is not a healthy project. I have not yet regained access to my committer account so I am not fully aware of the private discussions around the PMC switch. L
New committers?
I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt) that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations! Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers? Thanks. L
Re: New committers?
On 08/30/12 11:17, Stefan Teleman wrote: [...] I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate link with the correct list of committers: I don't see any difference between the two, either. I'll leave it at that. L
Re: New committers?
On 08/30/2012 09:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Liviu Nicoaranikko...@hates.ms wrote: I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt) that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations! Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers? I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate link with the correct list of committers: QUOTE An up-to-date list of all Apache committers (or committers-to-be) is being maintained by Jim Jagielski on this page. /QUOTE which links to: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html But out of that comprehensive list of all the ASF Committers, I don't know who the other two stdcxx Committers are. Christopher Bergström, and Wojciech Meyer. Which also begs the question: why was this stdcxx Committers list update done this way, by linking to a separate page, when the change could have very well be made directly to the stdcxx's Committers list. I would usually update the Committers table when I chaired the project. But any committer can update the STDCXX site. It doesn't have to be the chair. It would be useful to have instructions for how to do it somewhere. Let me see if I can find some time to write them up and post them. FWIW, the link to Jim's page is there simply as a reference to the (at one point and maybe still) authoritative list of all committers and committers-to-be. I thought it would be handy when we forgot to update the table. Martin --Stefan
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012 2:58 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/30/12 07:29 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: On 08/30/12 06:48, C. Bergström wrote: I'm sincerely sorry to ask this and I have my own answers, but why continue STDCXX when such negativity from Apache is apparent.. AFAICT, the Apache Foundation has been a good host for STDCXX during these years. They have provided a framework for STDCXX to function in as well as an infrastructure for its daily activities. All in accordance to their principles about what constitutes a healthy software project. I disagree that the recent actions have fostered positive growth in the project. 1) They fired the previous PMC - who was by far the most invested and dedicated person to the project. I don't care if he missed some reports or had a few flippant comments - I think it was pretty stupid (I mean he's part of the C++ standard committee) 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Hosting and mailing lists can be put almost anywhere and very a menial thing. I see discussions like this and bureaucratic non-sense as a dire roadblock to success. or Why not move to libc++? (Yes I realize the amount of effort involved here) It can't be explained. Sure it can, but it's biased to perspective and needs. For example if libc++ doesn't support Win platforms, or you must maintain STL compatibility or if you want to have support for C++11 sooner. I'll contribute time, resources and engineering help if the project moves away from Apache, but not otherwise. ./C
Re: New chair and/or attic
On 08/31/12 03:10 AM, Pavel Heimlich, a.k.a. hajma wrote: 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Just because bureaucrats say jump doesn't mean anything is going to happen. --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review - I'm really not sure if to you this would make the project dead or in a koma. The problem as I have said before is there needs to be some compelling reason to use STDCXX vs libc++. Instead of just trying to sweep it under the rug - why not find it a new home, put a one line call for help on a blog/homepage or etc. Apache leaders have a huge readership, but this koma issue isn't on the general radar. STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of a C++ stack and the cost of leaving it out of the attic is negligible - What's the benefit of bringing up these attic discussions?
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 5:45 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 08/31/12 03:10 AM, Pavel Heimlich, a.k.a. hajma wrote: 2) Posting the project is dead on a public list certainly doesn't help grow a community well, it's half year since revival of the project was announced and has there been any progress/improvements? The state of this is a koma at best. Just because bureaucrats say jump doesn't mean anything is going to happen. Pavel has had an unfortunate choice of words. Let's leave it at that. --- The facts as I know it 1) Our fork is maintained (continuous bug fixes - which we won't submit to Apache now) 2) Stefan is putting in some work (one man army) 3) Wojciech Meyer had put in some work 4) NetBSD has a small amount of patches they could probably push upstream (If Jörg has the time) 5) Martin is/was great for feedback in all areas of STL/C++/occasional code review While I recognize the value of each one of the points you make, I am puzzled as to why you are not going forward on your way with your fork? How is the Apache Foundation keeping you from making progress on your use of the library? STDCXX isn't some stupid ass java framework or widget - It's a *critical* part of ... We all know that. This is the reason we/I come back to it over and over again, for reference, or inspiration, or sometime just to remember the good ol' days. That's what I meant by it can't be explained. L
Re: New chair and/or attic
On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström wrote: On 08/31/12 06:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: While I recognize the value of each one of the points you make, I am puzzled as to why you are not going forward on your way with your fork? How is the Apache Foundation keeping you from making progress on your use of the library? For our use it's not and I welcome any patches/help. It may be missed opportunity for getting a larger userbase and a moot point anyway. Specifically FBSD - When trying to push it as part of c++ stack replacement or part of ports the only objection I got was licensing related. (At this point they could also argue missing c++11 support) [...] IIUC, you would want to see STDCXX getting more exposure; one such avenue would involve having it used in FreeBSD as a ports package, with an all permissive BSD license. While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip and pushing to the attic. The fact that Rogue Wave agreed to release the STDCXX code back in 2005 is nothing short of a miracle. IMHO, we are lucky to benefit from having had this library released to the public, anyway. L
