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

[Staffan Gimåker]

Is or will this repo be publicly available anywhere?

I'd probably be more interested in contributing patches to such a repo than
to what the zmq master is becoming.

/S

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20120205/65851413/attachment.htm>