Is or will this repo be publicly available anywhere? I'd probably be more interested in contributing patches to such a repo than to what the zmq master is becoming.
/S On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/02/12 18:37, AJ Lewis wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0000, Christian Martinez wrote: > > >> First, I have to make a disclaimer that everything I'm about to say is > >> my opinion only and does not reflect any official MSFT position. > > > > Heh - I guess I should put that disclaimer on my posts too - this is my > > opinion and doesn't reflect any official QTM position. > > > >> Personally I love the give and take and don't feel threatened or upset > >> by any of the shenanigans. I find them a natural part of the OSS > >> process. Before I joined the monolith I used to work exclusively in > >> the OSS world using things like ACE/TAO, MICO, every Java framework > >> imaginable etc... There was never a shortage of interesting > >> discussions/rants. > >> > >> What I've observed is that every one of the projects that were > >> successful had a benevolent dictator and a few hard core contributors. > >> As long as that basic infrastructure is there and passion remains then > >> I feel comfortable telling as many folks as possible to check out 0MQ. > >> We've embraced Node and Hadoop very publicly as a company and work > >> deeply with those projects. I'd love it if someday we can do that with > >> 0MQ as well. > > > > Definitely - just concerned that this model continues. Some of the talk > > about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other contributers to > > revert them makes me nervous. Are the original maintainers still going > > to consider themselves contributors, or are they expecting other > > community members to pick that up? Is there a core vision? I'm not > > sure who the benevolent dictator is in this project ATM, which may just > > mean I haven't been paying enough attention. I'm definitely more > > comfortable with the gatekeeper model that the linux kernel employs - > > where there are core maintainers that vet patches before they're > > committed to the main repo. I don't want to reopen that discussion - I > > know there's concerns about that model for historical reasons. I just > > need to watch what happens and get my head wrapped around it. > > To keep both of you calm: > > I am going to keep my own fork of the repo in the old rigorous and > elitist way. I will commit/pull patches only after careful code review, > track the code origin, reject anonymous patches, I will take care of > fixing stability problems, focus on performance and versatility, push > forward the vision of large-scale flexible topologies and ultimately > push the whole thing towards inclusion into the OS and towards IETF > standardisation. In other words, I'll continue to do what I've been > doing since 2007. > > In short, there's nothing to fear. If this social experiment fails, > there still will be a back-up option. > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
