On 13/05/2014 9:59 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
Apologies for not chiming in earlier, I've been running around with my air
on fire for the past couple of weeks. As to whether River is dead, I don't
think it is, maybe mostly dead (in which case a visit to Miracle Max may be
in order). I think River is static, but not dead. The technology is so
worth at least maintaining, fixing bugs and continued care and feeding.
The issue to me is that the project has no direction, and River has no
community that participates and makes decisions as a community. There has
been tons of work in qa_refactor, is that the future for River? Or is it a
fork?
There are develpers who are concerned about the number of fixes made in
qa-refactor, but no one yet has identified an issue I haven't been able
to fix very quickly. In any case the public api and serial form is
backward compatible.
I encourage the community to test it, find out for themselves and report
any issues.
Regards
Dennis
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Greg Trasuk<tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote:
On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter<j...@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.
