[zeromq-dev] using 4.0?

[Bob Beaty]

On Sep 27, 2011, at 2:18 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:

> On 09/26/2011 03:57 PM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Anyway, let us see what others think of the issue.
> 
> Everyone, please, if you have any opinion, do express it now.


Since you asked, My experience with ZeroMQ in this regard has been mixed. It's a great product, but with each release I've used, there has been some little issue that has created a real "sales crisis" for me in my organization. Something where "compile and use" hasn't been the case.

Now there are so many different repos for basically the same project, it once again looks as if the development is "scattered", or too dispersed. It seems to me that branching is as effective a tool for maintaining multiple code paths as what's being employed at the time.

Be that as it may. I'm on the 2.1.x branch now, and I look at the 3.x and 4.x and wonder if I need to upgrade what the real path is. Sure, I can read that 3.x is the one to go to, but with 4.x out there, it's clear that 3.x isn't going to be "the path" for much longer. If it were, then what would be the use of 4.x?

So if I move now, it seems that 4.x is what the real future is. Yet, we read that this is experimental. If it's that experimental, then why make it public? If it's so that others can use it and contribute, then clearly, it *is* the future, and that's where people should be looking long-term.

Like I said, it's not impossible to use. In fact, it's great code. But it's confusing, and it makes it very hard to sell to an organization that this is stable, and there's a clear path forward.

    Thanks,
        Bob (drbobbeaty at gmail.com)
    The Man from S.P.U.D.
    We will write no code before it's designed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20110927/87d9e3d9/attachment.htm>