Re: Review of Neo4j patch
Rene see some of the questions I had in the review https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:45 AM, René Peinl rene.pe...@hof-university.de wrote: If you can be more specific on what exactly is not well documented enough to be easy to set up, we will surely enhance the documentation in these areas. However, we have already improved it since the last conversation about this issue a few months ago. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ryan Baxter [mailto:rbaxte...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Mai 2014 16:17 An: dev@shindig.apache.org Betreff: Re: Review of Neo4j patch I echo Stanton's comments. The last time I tried to use the patch I was still having trouble figuring out how to get everything up and running. I can try to find some time to take a look again. Sorry to be so slow on this. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Stanton Sievers ssiev...@apache.org wrote: Hi René, I'm sorry that this has been your experience. Please don't interpret the slow-moving process as a lack of appreciation for the work you've done. It is very much appreciated, I promise you. Given the state of the patch and the conversation on the review, I think we need to just get this committed so that work can continue in smaller, more manageable chunks. For my own part, I'll aim to play around with things over the upcoming long weekend here in the states. Thanks, -Stanton On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:28 AM, René Peinl rene.pe...@hof-university.dewrote: Dear Shindig Community, I’d like to bring our contribution regarding a proper database backend for Apache Shindig to your attention. As some of you might know, we already posted an initial patch over a year ago. It turned out, that it was not feasible to include this in Shindig due to licensing issues that we were not aware of before. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1911 A few months later we asked via the mailing list, whether you would be still interested in getting a patch which circumvents these issues and I received positive feedback from you. 4 months ago, we posted a new version of the patch which sorted out the licensing issues and had some other significant enhancements regarding multi-threading, multiple concurrent connections and things like that, that make it ready for larger installations with multiple db servers. https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ Initially, Ryan Baxter gave us some good hints regarding minor issues with documentation and installation. We’ve sorted them out, but during the last three months there were no visible efforts from the Shindig-side to really bring this patch into the main code. We are still committed to support and further enhance it, so if there are reasonable issues, please let us know. I’d like to communicate my frustration and disappointment about the procedure. I don’t know the reasons for the way this issue is handled and I’m sure you all have important things to do, but I can’t imagine how any open source project can work that simply ignores contributions worth several person months of work. Please give this patch a fair chance. Regards René Prof. Dr. René Peinl Teaching area: architecture of Web applications Hof University Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1 95028 Hof Germany Tel: +49 9281 409-4820 mailto: mailto:rene.pe...@hof-university.de rene.pe...@hof-university.de
AW: Review of Neo4j patch
If you can be more specific on what exactly is not well documented enough to be easy to set up, we will surely enhance the documentation in these areas. However, we have already improved it since the last conversation about this issue a few months ago. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ryan Baxter [mailto:rbaxte...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Mai 2014 16:17 An: dev@shindig.apache.org Betreff: Re: Review of Neo4j patch I echo Stanton's comments. The last time I tried to use the patch I was still having trouble figuring out how to get everything up and running. I can try to find some time to take a look again. Sorry to be so slow on this. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Stanton Sievers ssiev...@apache.org wrote: Hi René, I'm sorry that this has been your experience. Please don't interpret the slow-moving process as a lack of appreciation for the work you've done. It is very much appreciated, I promise you. Given the state of the patch and the conversation on the review, I think we need to just get this committed so that work can continue in smaller, more manageable chunks. For my own part, I'll aim to play around with things over the upcoming long weekend here in the states. Thanks, -Stanton On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:28 AM, René Peinl rene.pe...@hof-university.dewrote: Dear Shindig Community, I’d like to bring our contribution regarding a proper database backend for Apache Shindig to your attention. As some of you might know, we already posted an initial patch over a year ago. It turned out, that it was not feasible to include this in Shindig due to licensing issues that we were not aware of before. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1911 A few months later we asked via the mailing list, whether you would be still interested in getting a patch which circumvents these issues and I received positive feedback from you. 4 months ago, we posted a new version of the patch which sorted out the licensing issues and had some other significant enhancements regarding multi-threading, multiple concurrent connections and things like that, that make it ready for larger installations with multiple db servers. https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ Initially, Ryan Baxter gave us some good hints regarding minor issues with documentation and installation. We’ve sorted them out, but during the last three months there were no visible efforts from the Shindig-side to really bring this patch into the main code. We are still committed to support and further enhance it, so if there are reasonable issues, please let us know. I’d like to communicate my frustration and disappointment about the procedure. I don’t know the reasons for the way this issue is handled and I’m sure you all have important things to do, but I can’t imagine how any open source project can work that simply ignores contributions worth several person months of work. Please give this patch a fair chance. Regards René Prof. Dr. René Peinl Teaching area: architecture of Web applications Hof University Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1 95028 Hof Germany Tel: +49 9281 409-4820 mailto: mailto:rene.pe...@hof-university.de rene.pe...@hof-university.de
Re: Review of Neo4j patch
I echo Stanton's comments. The last time I tried to use the patch I was still having trouble figuring out how to get everything up and running. I can try to find some time to take a look again. Sorry to be so slow on this. On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Stanton Sievers ssiev...@apache.org wrote: Hi René, I'm sorry that this has been your experience. Please don't interpret the slow-moving process as a lack of appreciation for the work you've done. It is very much appreciated, I promise you. Given the state of the patch and the conversation on the review, I think we need to just get this committed so that work can continue in smaller, more manageable chunks. For my own part, I'll aim to play around with things over the upcoming long weekend here in the states. Thanks, -Stanton On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:28 AM, René Peinl rene.pe...@hof-university.dewrote: Dear Shindig Community, I’d like to bring our contribution regarding a proper database backend for Apache Shindig to your attention. As some of you might know, we already posted an initial patch over a year ago. It turned out, that it was not feasible to include this in Shindig due to licensing issues that we were not aware of before. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1911 A few months later we asked via the mailing list, whether you would be still interested in getting a patch which circumvents these issues and I received positive feedback from you. 4 months ago, we posted a new version of the patch which sorted out the licensing issues and had some other significant enhancements regarding multi-threading, multiple concurrent connections and things like that, that make it ready for larger installations with multiple db servers. https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ Initially, Ryan Baxter gave us some good hints regarding minor issues with documentation and installation. We’ve sorted them out, but during the last three months there were no visible efforts from the Shindig-side to really bring this patch into the main code. We are still committed to support and further enhance it, so if there are reasonable issues, please let us know. I’d like to communicate my frustration and disappointment about the procedure. I don’t know the reasons for the way this issue is handled and I’m sure you all have important things to do, but I can’t imagine how any open source project can work that simply ignores contributions worth several person months of work. Please give this patch a fair chance. Regards René Prof. Dr. René Peinl Teaching area: architecture of Web applications Hof University Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1 95028 Hof Germany Tel: +49 9281 409-4820 mailto: mailto:rene.pe...@hof-university.de rene.pe...@hof-university.de
Review of Neo4j patch
Dear Shindig Community, Id like to bring our contribution regarding a proper database backend for Apache Shindig to your attention. As some of you might know, we already posted an initial patch over a year ago. It turned out, that it was not feasible to include this in Shindig due to licensing issues that we were not aware of before. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1911 A few months later we asked via the mailing list, whether you would be still interested in getting a patch which circumvents these issues and I received positive feedback from you. 4 months ago, we posted a new version of the patch which sorted out the licensing issues and had some other significant enhancements regarding multi-threading, multiple concurrent connections and things like that, that make it ready for larger installations with multiple db servers. https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ Initially, Ryan Baxter gave us some good hints regarding minor issues with documentation and installation. Weve sorted them out, but during the last three months there were no visible efforts from the Shindig-side to really bring this patch into the main code. We are still committed to support and further enhance it, so if there are reasonable issues, please let us know. Id like to communicate my frustration and disappointment about the procedure. I dont know the reasons for the way this issue is handled and Im sure you all have important things to do, but I cant imagine how any open source project can work that simply ignores contributions worth several person months of work. Please give this patch a fair chance. Regards René Prof. Dr. René Peinl Teaching area: architecture of Web applications Hof University Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1 95028 Hof Germany Tel: +49 9281 409-4820 mailto: mailto:rene.pe...@hof-university.de rene.pe...@hof-university.de
Re: Review of Neo4j patch
Hi René, I'm sorry that this has been your experience. Please don't interpret the slow-moving process as a lack of appreciation for the work you've done. It is very much appreciated, I promise you. Given the state of the patch and the conversation on the review, I think we need to just get this committed so that work can continue in smaller, more manageable chunks. For my own part, I'll aim to play around with things over the upcoming long weekend here in the states. Thanks, -Stanton On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:28 AM, René Peinl rene.pe...@hof-university.dewrote: Dear Shindig Community, I’d like to bring our contribution regarding a proper database backend for Apache Shindig to your attention. As some of you might know, we already posted an initial patch over a year ago. It turned out, that it was not feasible to include this in Shindig due to licensing issues that we were not aware of before. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1911 A few months later we asked via the mailing list, whether you would be still interested in getting a patch which circumvents these issues and I received positive feedback from you. 4 months ago, we posted a new version of the patch which sorted out the licensing issues and had some other significant enhancements regarding multi-threading, multiple concurrent connections and things like that, that make it ready for larger installations with multiple db servers. https://reviews.apache.org/r/9773/ Initially, Ryan Baxter gave us some good hints regarding minor issues with documentation and installation. We’ve sorted them out, but during the last three months there were no visible efforts from the Shindig-side to really bring this patch into the main code. We are still committed to support and further enhance it, so if there are reasonable issues, please let us know. I’d like to communicate my frustration and disappointment about the procedure. I don’t know the reasons for the way this issue is handled and I’m sure you all have important things to do, but I can’t imagine how any open source project can work that simply ignores contributions worth several person months of work. Please give this patch a fair chance. Regards René Prof. Dr. René Peinl Teaching area: architecture of Web applications Hof University Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1 95028 Hof Germany Tel: +49 9281 409-4820 mailto: mailto:rene.pe...@hof-university.de rene.pe...@hof-university.de
