Robbie Gemmell wrote > Saying you see value in something is not someone saying they will help > maintain it. There being users is not someone saying they will help > maintain it. I see one person who might have said they intend to help > maintain things on the CPP side. Some other people have either said or > implied they wont be helping maintain them. I've avoided commenting in > the thread so far as that latter direction includes me.
I think a few folks here have implied or said they would help maintain it. This has been established. Robbie Gemmell wrote > While I am commenting though..I think the 'there are users' argument > goes both ways and its in general nicer to let any users know the > actual state of things, once established. I believe components that > are not under active maintenance should be noted that way in some > fashion so its clear thats true, in case there are actually users > (nothing is stopping them continuing to use it regardless). No it doesn't and thats not fair. Case in point... I have a visibility of users utilizing those APIs as my work is outward facing in the ActiveMQ space. I'm not an internal engineer working on specialized products. I work with end users daily for multiple clients. I am clearly aware there is a good solid group of people using those APIs. I am not going to sit and list the user names and companies for whom I know use it. Unless you are tracking the downloads, its pretty hard to say how many users leverage it. But I am in the know that there is a good solid base of fortune 100 companies using those products. So it does not go both ways. Robbie Gemmell wrote > If it becomes clear thats the case, e.g it seems insuffcient folks > actually > step forward to maintain something, then to me it doesnt seem > particularly different to the recent commits marking Apollo as > deprecated, or the LevelDB related stuff being marked deprecated in > the past as mentioned earlier in the thread. That is an apples to oranges comparison. Apollo was fully abandoned adn unanimously voted to sunset it. LevelDB was connected to an outside library written by Dain Sundstom (another one of those github repos owned by a single person). That LevelDB code was difficult to update without forking it over here. It was unwieldy and a mess of issues. That also was unanimously sunsetted. These APIs clearly are not and its far from unanimous. Robbie Gemmell wrote > I dont think I'd consider a component maintained and releasable > without a site presence. Linking to old content for docs would be fine > though. and that is where is vehemently disagree with you. Linux is full of drivers, APIs, etc, that only have a README.txt file attached to it. If nobody here has time to maintain a website, then IMHO a README.md or txt is just fine. If you are adamant about a website, then pick up a shovel and step up to do it. Thats an easy way to get commit. The CPP and NMS code bases are relatively stable and the JIRAs out there have some nice patches associated with them. IMHO the main issue with those repos is getting them properly cleaned up for releases like how ActiveMQ does. Jamie Goodyear has already discussed this on the dev lists with no response. Yet when he attempted to do PRs, they got -1'd. So its a bit of the chicken and egg on that one. BTW Robbie, welcome to open source :-). That how these things go. People step up to do different things and not everyone wants to do the whole tomato. Jeff -- Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
