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

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Sat Feb 4 12:50:40 CET 2012

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:09 AM, Martin Lucina <martin at lucina.net> wrote:

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

Certainly, in eliminating friction, which is unnecessary cost imposed by force.

> 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.

We took 2.1 through a full year, from unstable to stable, with 96
itemized changes and 13 releases over that time. The older history
often just says "Many bugs were fixed" because the process was so
opaque at the time.

> 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.

There were other *severe* problems. If you like I will remind you of
them. But that is boring.

Let's take another approach.

Mato, I've seen this story happen often. You and Martin are really not
the first case.

What happens is that a small elite group swallow their own propaganda
and believe they are better than everyone else. They write code that
they barely, if ever use. They create complex processes that no-one
else can take part in. They create friction left and right. In their
minds, and arguments, this is always about "quality". it is always
about "quality". Underlying their arguments is a constant tone of
superiority. As people question them, they band together and insist
they have the moral authority. But subconsciously, and we see this in
the way you resort to emotional appeals and personal attacks, it is
about *control* and insecurity.

You're afraid that if a dozen other people can do your job
effortlessly, you are somehow redundant.

You always distrust people you can't control. It's cute but not
original.  You mentioned Wikipedia and it's exactly the same argument,
made by small elites with complex, opaque processes, against the
unwashed masses who will "steal their jobs".

The key to open source however, and the success of a community, is
that you don't need to trust anyone except to be themselves. Everyone,
even the insecure distrustful elites have their place. And over time,
it's a happy and profitable place because -- and here's the nub --
no-one likes to be in control of a dying project.

It is far better to be one of many, in a successful project, than the
moral owner of a perfect, high-quality, irrelevant piece of cake.


More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list