river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: New Chair for Apache River PMC
Date Mon, 12 May 2014 15:38:43 GMT
I think it would be interesting to have a discussion about any 
shortcomings in the api and how things might be done differently with 
modern knowledge, to determine whether we need to redesign the api and 
if the extent required a full rewrite or just a backward compatiblity break.

So far I've managed to modernise the internals with promising results.  
I'm working on a bug in JERI at present.  The public API has remained 
compatible in keeping with general consensus.  I have a hard enough time 
changing private code, the list is very conservative with change.

Regards,

Peter.

On 13/05/2014 12:21 AM, Jeremy R. Easton-Marks wrote:
> While I enjoy River I think that shelving it as is may be the best 
> option. I think this project may have run its course in its current 
> state and this doesn't encourage new development or interest in 
> participating in the project.
>
> However, I would like to present a strawman proposal to the group. The 
> current committers put out a last maintenance release fixing any bugs 
> that may have been been resolved but not yet released. After that the 
> 2.* branch is abandoned. At that point the River community decides if 
> it is possible and worthwhile to start over from scratch. We begin 
> this new project from day 1 with deciding what we want to accomplish, 
> and how we accomplish. No code is written until a good set of 
> requirements are written and voted upon. We keep the development 
> community in mind and make sure that River 3.0 is approachable from 
> scratch.
>
> While this may take more time and at times probably be very tedious at 
> times I think it gives the project a fresh start and not be beholden 
> to old code, and requirements.
>
> Just my 2 cents on the subject.
>
> ~Jeremy
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com 
> <mailto:trasukg@stratuscom.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter <jini@zeus.net.au
>     <mailto:jini@zeus.net.au>> wrote:
>
>     >
>     >
>     > Ultimately, if community involvement continues to decline, we
>     may have to send River to the attic.
>     >
>     > Distributed computing is difficult and we often bump into the
>     shortcomings of the java platform, I think these difficulties are
>     why developers have trouble agreeing on solutions.
>     >
>     > But I think more importantly we need increased user involvement.
>     >
>     > Is there any advise or resources we can draw on from other
>     Apache projects?
>     >
>
>     It may be, ultimately, that the community has failed and River is
>     headed to the Attic.  The usual question is “Can the project round
>     up the 3 ‘+1’ votes required to make an Apache release?”
>      Historically, we have been able to do that, at least for
>     maintenance releases, and I don’t see that changing, at least for
>     a while.
>
>     The problem is future development and the ongoing health of the
>     project.  On this point, we don’t seem to have consensus on where
>     we want the project to go, and there’s limited enthusiasm for
>     user-focused requirements.  Also, my calls to discuss the health
>     of the project have had no response (well, there was a tangent
>     about the build system, but personally I think that misses the point).
>
>     I will include in the board report the fact that no-one has
>     expressed an interest in taking over as PMC chair, and ask if
>     there are any other expert resources that can help.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Greg Trasuk.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jeremy R. Easton-Marks
>
> "être fort pour être utile"


Mime
View raw message