I am dinomite on Github: https://github.com/dinomite/
-Drew On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 4:34:39 PM UTC-5, tsaloranta wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:34 PM Drew Stephens <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I'm a long time Jackson user and almost always use it alongside Kotlin >> these days. I'm happy to lend a hand in management of the module going >> forward; I have significant Kotlin expertise, having used it since right >> when 1.0 was released, though the internals of the Jackson Kotlin module >> are new to me. >> > > Excellent! I created placeholder issue: > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-module-kotlin/issues/302 > > and included you (still need github account too), as well as Vyacheslav > who indicated interest earlier when I asked (I assume he is still > interested too). > > Everyone else: apologies if I missed an earlier discussion; please remind > me if you are still interested in helping as active maintainer. Intention > is not to have a ton of work/process/maintenance to do, but to have > individuals who can follow-up on issues, help contributors make decisions > on PRs. Of course any other active help is appreciated too, but my main > concern right now is that I want to enable community to further develop > this module without my being the blocker. > > So: we have 2 volunteers -- and I think with just one more we would have > initial set of new maintainers to give access. > > -+ Tatu +- > > > >> >> -Drew >> >> On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 11:19:01 PM UTC-5, Tatu Saloranta wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 4:59 PM Christopher Currie >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > Coming out of hibernation to drop some thoughts: >>> > >>> > While I sympathize with the idea of not making new releases until a >>> maintainer is found, the unfortunate side-effect of that will be to >>> lock-out Kotlin users from any critical fixes that might occur in Jackson >>> proper, unless it can be guaranteed that last 2.10 release will be forward >>> compatible, which sounds unlikely if you're targeting a major version as >>> the next Jackson release. >>> >>> Right, good points. Moratorium (if any) would not be meant as >>> punitive, esp. so not for users. >>> >>> So at very minimum testing to keep 2.10 of module compatible should be >>> done. >>> >>> I also think that I will probably not do this for 2.11, yet, at least. >>> That one blocker issue is something I can probably work around by >>> adding feature (to select singleton handling). >>> This would give more time and not force the issue too early. >>> >>> I need to gather some more thoughts as I think there are basically 3 >>> issues (of which just 1 wrt Kotlin) to resolve before 2.11. And maybe >>> minor 4th question on whether there is need for a RC/alpha/beta >>> version. >>> >>> > That said, holding a release of the next version until a maintainer >>> can be found does make some sense, if it's going to happen eventually, as >>> it gives that maintainer an opportunity to make the next release solid, >>> rather than having to wait for the next patch release train for fixes or >>> improvements. So I guess I'm coming down on the side if "sounds reasonable, >>> for a short time." Better to not release right away, and keep your options >>> open, and re-evaluate if there's a lot of demand for a release. >>> > >>> > On the maintainer side, perhaps a team of approvers? Github now >>> supports configuring a repo to require a certain number of reviews before >>> merging; if you've had multiple offers for maintenance, a team of at least >>> three, configured to require two positive reviews, may help to guard >>> against risky merges. >>> >>> Yes, I think that there are good mechanisms for helping with practical >>> aspects. >>> What I would like to resolve is just the conceptual part: agreements >>> -- who should and has the right to decide, in a way that tries to >>> balance stability of changes (reviewing) with efficiency of getting >>> changes merged (merging what is considered a good change). >>> >>> > >>> > HTH, >>> > Christopher >>> >>> Thank you, this is helpful. >>> >>> -+ Tatu +- >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:14 PM Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> So. I think that the current semi-existence of Jackson Kotlin module >>> >> is not good for anyone. While there has been positive progress wrt >>> >> many features in 2.10, there have been a few new issues that are >>> >> partly my fault for not being able to properly sanity check risks, >>> >> concerns, or weight effects of changes. >>> >> A particular example would be changes in 2.10 to handling of >>> Singleton >>> >> values, where situation is pretty close to lose-lose: regardless of >>> >> whether to just blindly skip matching JSON content (2.10 behavior), >>> >> return Singleton, or deserialize content, drop resulting instance and >>> >> return Singleton (2.9 and before). >>> >> >>> >> At this point my feeling is this: unless a new set of active >>> >> maintainers can be found, agreed upon, I do not think I should >>> release >>> >> new minor versions of Kotlin module. That just gives false impression >>> >> of maintained component. >>> >> >>> >> On plus side, multiple individuals have mentioned they would be >>> >> interested in helping -- big thank you to everyone. >>> >> But the problem here is this: since I can not properly judge >>> >> development of the module, I also can not quite figure out how and >>> who >>> >> to hand over guardianship either. >>> >> >>> >> I would be very interested in hearing suggestions, proposals for >>> >> finding new owners: and one of few things I have opinion about this >>> >> here is that ownership should be shared across more than 1 individual >>> >> (but probably no more than 2 - 4). >>> >> >>> >> So. WDYT? >>> >> >>> >> -+ Tatu +- >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "jackson-dev" group. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to [email protected]. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/CAL4a10jSFPzGqZJGSyDvrfpWyGRpeFiH2%2BWBphSZev_EXZuGMQ%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "jackson-dev" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/CAFkNez9G6pV0wpRcXG9D7tT1JquEZWyqyt8nn%3D0ZWWi6pMROYQ%40mail.gmail.com. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/9e9f0fbf-d0b6-4640-8ec2-ff602eaa81ba%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/9e9f0fbf-d0b6-4640-8ec2-ff602eaa81ba%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/3122c6c4-bcf1-42fc-8c41-16ef9e78b954%40googlegroups.com.
