river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Wonderly <ge...@cox.net>
Subject Re: DISCUSS: Proposal for eliminating tensions; return to collaborative development
Date Sun, 26 Jan 2014 00:27:01 GMT
+1!!!!

Peter has done a bunch of very serious and very need code structure improvements.  Not using
this work for the future of River would be a poor choice. 

I am sorry that I can not take a more active role in helping out right now.  That might change
in the future, but for now I need to sit on the side and be an observer.

Gregg Wonderly

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 22, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 916AM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If this proposal is supported, I'd also reccommend that trunk be reverted back
to the 2.2 River branch, with the exception of Sim's work on ClassLoading, which should be
included.
>>> 
>>> Provided there is support, change trunk to review then commit without lazy concensus.
>>> 
>>> I would finish the work on qa_refactor and solve the remaining multithreaded
issues (on a longer lower pressure time schedule), the River community can then decide whether
it wants to use code from qa_refactor on an as needed basis.  I believe that the River community
will find this code a useful reference for latent multithreaded bugs.
>>> 
>> 
>> I’m in favour of this approach.
> 
> I'm not. I think trunk should contain the ongoing development of River. We have the 2.2
branch, I think 2.2 should stay there. I would like to see qa_refactor moved to trunk, have
com.sun.jini namespace changed to org.apache.river and move to 3.0.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dennis
> 

Mime
View raw message