Jonathan Reichhold wrote:
I was just expressing an opinion as someone who watches the list.  I'm not
trying to drive you toward any decision, but have watched how River has
stayed in incubation for 2 years.  I've used JINI on projects and was mostly
happy, but the bugs in it were never resolved last I looked.

I was attempting to ask what the policy of Zookeeper was in regards to
something that hasn't gotten out of incubation.

Sorry for the slow response but I wanted to make sure I understood the issues before commenting. Jonathan, I do appreciate you bringing up this issue, it's not something I had considered (incubation), although I did look at River and it's list activity before initially commenting.

According to the response that I got from the incubator community it's fine for TLPs to use incubator code, in particular this snippet:

I don't think this is a problem.
Incubator releases are approved by the Incubator PMC, and have had as much (or more) legal review as releases by other TLPs.

We would want the submitted code to depend on a released version of River, not code that's unreleased (not a river jar built from svn for example)

full details:

That said, I did have some concern regarding River's apparent lack of progress. Mature projects might have very infrequent releases (look at log4j, or Forrest), but it did seem a bit unusual that a community in incubation would have so infrequent a release cycle, at the very least one would expect fix releases! This was why I suggested submitting as a contrib. The functionality seems useful to our user base and having it available in contrib would be a good thing IMO.

Please don't take my comments as a statement on this project and what you
should do.  I have no commit privileges or management of the project, and
just wanted to ask the question.

I believe your comments were both justified and useful, keep them coming. :-)

Brian, not sure where you guys are with your thinking on this. Feel free to open a JIRA, collect further feedback, and submit a patch.




On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Brian Murphy <>wrote:

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jonathan Reichhold <> 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