On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Martin Lucina <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] said: >> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > So far 0MQ was tagged as 'beta' implying it's still in development and >> > the API/ABI may change between releases. >> > >> > However, it seems that the project is in a stage where people really >> > care about stability of the API/ABI and complain when it gets changed. >> >> It seems kind of confusing that as we move towards a stable release, >> we still make last-minute changes. Sorry to all the binding >> maintainers. We really wanted to get the API stable in this current >> version. >> >> We've moved/forked the repository to https://github.com/imatix/zeromq >> and will move the current master towards "stable". New >> experimentation will happen on other branches or other gits.
While a bit of a pain I do think it makes sense to move the main repo to this location in the long run. Cheers, Brian > I am somewhat surprised that this "executive decision" has been made in the > short space of about 12 hours since Martin Sustrik's request for comments > on the way forward, without actually giving the contributors involved a > chance to comment on what that way forward might be. > > As a contributor who has spent a considerable amount of time *for free* > helping both with the actual preparation of the last few 0MQ releases, and > helping define the release policy, I feel somewhat "left out". > > Therefore, I must ask the following questions: > > Regarding the actual change of the canonical repository, will existing > collaborators be retained? > > Who will be maintaining this new "fork", if it is a fork, and is this > regarded as a community project or as an iMatix project? > > What will happen to the sustrik/zeromq2 repository, which as of today has > 129 watchers and thus is regarded by at least 129 people as the canonical > repository for 0MQ? > > How will those 129 watchers, and other people not necessarily watching the > mailing list for an obscure message titled "Stable release", learn about > this change? > > Why was this change not implemented simply as the announcement of the > creation of a v2.0-stable branch in the current repository? (This is what I > would have recommended, but no one asked/gave me a chance to answer) > > What is the roadmap for the stabilization of the 2.0.x release? > > -mato > > > > > > Regarding the >> >> -Pieter >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Brian E. Granger, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Physics Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
