[zeromq-dev] C++ assertion failed with Java client

[Martin Lucina]

ph at imatix.com said:
> The debate here is whether the old meritocracy can deliver that
> quality or not. The evidence suggests it can, but only with huge
> effort. However, over the last years I've been able to maintain
> several 2.x releases with minimal effort, and maintain high quality,
> by allowing _anyone_ to submit patches and at the same time apply a
> tough fix test process.

Agreed, delivering quality is hard and costly. The new process appears to
be an experiment in eliminating that cost.

Please note that you maintained the 2.1 stable releases using a completely
different process than that which is now being applied to master. Further,
under that process, you only had to deal with a small amount of fixes to
existing bugs in the code base. You did not have to deal with new code or
contributions.

IMO in the days of Martin Sustrik's lead, there was no "unstable" release,
or at least not in the sense that we have now, since master was carefully
vetted and maintained. Sure, there were other problems with what went on
master, but code quality was not one of them.

-mato