[zeromq-dev] using 4.0?

MinRK benjaminrk at gmail.com
Tue Sep 27 09:44:55 CEST 2011


On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 06:57, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As far as I can see the problem is caused by mixing experimental code
> > and "real" code under the same brand name (0MQ), which in turn causes
> > confusion and uncertainty.
>
> I vote against fragmenting the community and branding.
>
> Having three or four parallel versions is certainly confusing.
>
> However it's a trade-off. It's important IMO to keep the single
> experimental master version open to contributors, as a core project of
> the community. Moving it to a private personal repository would be
> damaging, either assuring that libzmq becomes a one-man project, or
> fragmenting the community. I'd recommend to Martin that he work harder
> to bring other people into libzmq development, by upfront
> documentation and discussion of changes.
>
> As well as the community aspect, it's essential that master changes be
> tested and used. That won't happen if it's a differently-named
> experimental project. Consider the thread on ZMQ_LEGO or whatever it's
> called. That discussion only happens when code is used.
>
> Having two projects both called libzmq would be worse than several
> versions of one project. Having a totally different name is even more
> confusing. Do I use libzmq or libsustrik? What version of libsustrik
> is compatible with what version of libzmq. Etc.
>
> So as long as we're actively experimenting with new functionality we
> _will_ have multiple versions. It's less, not more, confusing to have
> these in one place with one name.
>
> What we must do, IMO, is make sure people don't use 4.x by mistake,
> e.g. stating clearly on the git repository that it's experimental, and
> encouraging users to work off released packages, rather than git
> repositories.
>

All the other repos have qualifiers in their name (just versions, atm).  If
libzmq is for experimental work,
then it could be explicitly called 'libzmq-experimental'.  Being the only
unqualified repo, it actually looks
like the most logical choice for users who want to track the current dev
version of zeromq.

-MinRK


>
> We had the same discussion about a year ago, when people were using
> the 3-0 master by mistake, and we solved it the same way, with clear
> labelling and more frequent packaging.
>
> -Pieter
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110927/02b33aea/attachment.htm>


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list