Re: [zeromq-dev] Requiem for github

I will second the original posters viewpoint (but I'm uninvolved this is more just a Pieter reflection). I can only imagine sitting with Pieter today and listening to him rant about github and the acquisition (especially given recent news) :P To be fair it would be the best beer I have had in a

Re: [zeromq-dev] Requiem for github

On 06/05/2018 10:32 PM, Benjamin Henrion wrote: I guess he would want us to move to Gitlab: http://hintjens.com/blog:111 And leave a message for Microsoft on the dead Github... -- Benjamin Henrion (zoobab) It's really funny to see how relevant this still is. Indeed having a beer during

Re: [zeromq-dev] Client/Server Socket Prospects?

I’m interested in that as well — when I asked this question last year I got the following reply from Luca: https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2017-October/031960.html . My take on it is that client/server will

Re: [zeromq-dev] Client/Server Socket Prospects?

On Wed, 2018-06-06 at 20:47 +, Cunningham, Graeme wrote: > Can somebody on this list give an indication as to how likely the > Client/Server pattern (RFC41) is to be supported and promoted to > “stable” in the future? > > We’re building a number of interfaces on ZeroMQ in our new project, >

[zeromq-dev] Client/Server Socket Prospects?

Can somebody on this list give an indication as to how likely the Client/Server pattern (RFC41) is to be supported and promoted to “stable” in the future? We’re building a number of interfaces on ZeroMQ in our new project, but we’re wavering a bit on pattern design, given some of the statements

Re: [zeromq-dev] Requiem for github

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Henrion wrote: > I guess he would want us to move to Gitlab: > > http://hintjens.com/blog:111 > > And leave a message for Microsoft on the dead Github... Is there something you know that the rest of us do not? I am just now catching wind of the apparently