[zeromq-dev] Dev Process
ph at imatix.com
Sat Feb 4 08:41:19 CET 2012
John, no need. When there are critiques of material substance instead of
personal digs, then it's worth discussing. Mato, you can do better than
On Feb 4, 2012 5:36 AM, "john skaller" <skaller at users.sourceforge.net>
> On 04/02/2012, at 12:43 PM, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > In my humble but correct opinion:
> IMHBCO .. I'll have to remember tat one :)
> > Under Martin Sustrik's lead, we had a mediocre community, and a great
> > product.
> > Under Pieter Hintjens' lead, we have a great community, but are rapidly
> > progressing towards a mediocre product.
> Can you point to issues in the actual source and documentation that
> explain that view in more detail?
> I'm too new here to have a view, but I think that as we're in Pieter's
> "contribution" phase for 3.1, and are yet to get up to the "rigorous
> testing" phase intended to stabilise the product .. well you don't
> seem to be giving Pieter's model a chance.
> I worked on a product which used a formal process with intense discussion
> of many alternatives and supposedly rigorous analysis, experiment,
> and rejection of many things before they made it into "the source".
> The result .. well it seems a bit suboptimal, despite the intense vetting
> and selection and guidance of a Benevolent Dictator.
> [Er .. yes .. I'm talking about C++]
> Let me also say that for my own product I have gone through a cycle where
> the rule was "add everything, including several kitchen sinks".
> Then there was the "if in doubt, chuck it out" culling phase
> that followed.
> In between, the feature clutter was very useful because it provided
> concrete use cases from which to attempt to form abstractions.
> john skaller
> skaller at users.sourceforge.net
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the zeromq-dev