On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jonathan Reichhold <
jonathan.reichh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Apache River is dying from lack of updates.

Hmm, I suppose "dying" is a matter of opinion, or one's

If you're talking about the lack of an official release,
no argument there. But, for what it's worth, that might
be more a function of the many differing opinions
being voiced by the various parties interested in that
project; which has driven some away, but has been
viewed by others as healthy discourse.

For example, because the river codebase provides
an infrastructure rather than a specific application, and is
fairly mature and stable, some of the river meritocracy feel
that the project should move more slowly than application
based apache projects typically move, whereas others feel
just the opposite. I generally leave these sort of arguments
for others to worry about though. I'm usually more interested
in whether the code serves the needs of the project I'm on
(which in this case, both river and zookeeper do).

Fortunately, the project I'm currently on doesn't need any
major new features from river. The numerous patches
and updates that have been feeding into the pending 2.1.1
release (currently under vote) have been more than enough
to serve our needs, and have been put to quite good use.
But of course, your needs and experiences may be different.

> not sure tying to a project which hasn't moved since 2008 is a
> good idea for a contribution to Zookeeeper.

Okay, thanks for the honest answer, Jonathan. This is what
we were trying to find out by posing the original question to
the Zookeeper community. Since we don't want to be disruptive,
we'll simply continue developing the code in our own namespace.
No harm, no foul.


Reply via email to