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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter <[email protected]> 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"
