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

[Martin Sustrik]

On 03/02/12 18:37, AJ Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:16:06PM +0000, Christian Martinez wrote:

>> First, I have to make a disclaimer that everything I'm about to say is
>> my opinion only and does not reflect any official MSFT position.
>
> Heh - I guess I should put that disclaimer on my posts too - this is my
> opinion and doesn't reflect any official QTM position.
>
>> Personally I love the give and take and don't feel threatened or upset
>> by any of the shenanigans. I find them a natural part of the OSS
>> process. Before I joined the monolith I used to work exclusively in
>> the OSS world using things like ACE/TAO, MICO, every Java framework
>> imaginable etc... There was never a shortage of interesting
>> discussions/rants.
>>
>> What I've observed is that every one of the projects that were
>> successful had a benevolent dictator and a few hard core contributors.
>> As long as that basic infrastructure is there and passion remains then
>> I feel comfortable telling as many folks as possible to check out 0MQ.
>> We've embraced Node and Hadoop very publicly as a company and work
>> deeply with those projects. I'd love it if someday we can do that with
>> 0MQ as well.
>
> Definitely - just concerned that this model continues.  Some of the talk
> about taking all patches blindly and waiting for other contributers to
> revert them makes me nervous.  Are the original maintainers still going
> to consider themselves contributors, or are they expecting other
> community members to pick that up?  Is there a core vision?  I'm not
> sure who the benevolent dictator is in this project ATM, which may just
> mean I haven't been paying enough attention. I'm definitely more
> comfortable with the gatekeeper model that the linux kernel employs -
> where there are core maintainers that vet patches before they're
> committed to the main repo.  I don't want to reopen that discussion - I
> know there's concerns about that model for historical reasons. I just
> need to watch what happens and get my head wrapped around it.

To keep both of you calm:

I am going to keep my own fork of the repo in the old rigorous and 
elitist way. I will commit/pull patches only after careful code review, 
track the code origin, reject anonymous patches, I will take care of 
fixing stability problems, focus on performance and versatility, push 
forward the vision of large-scale flexible topologies and ultimately 
push the whole thing towards inclusion into the OS and towards IETF 
standardisation. In other words, I'll continue to do what I've been 
doing since 2007.

In short, there's nothing to fear. If this social experiment fails, 
there still will be a back-up option.

Martin