> On Feb 19, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I’ve got an outstanding pull request — #369 — that fixes some issues with >> websocket and as a result mangos websocket would be compatible with nanomsg. >> These include changes to the RFC, as well as fixes in the code. >> >> I would *really* like to see that integrated, rather than stagnating. The >> original author of the websocket transport has already given it his thumbs >> up. What else is required to see this move forward? > > The reason I didn't merge it was (but I should probably have made this > explicit) because I was a little concerned about the handshake > discussion that happened on the mailing list. IIRC, Drew Crawford > expressed a dissenting opinion on how it should work, but I've been > too busy to go back and dig it up. Drew has acknowledged that his objections were based on his misunderstanding, and has rescinded his objection. > >> I’m concerned that the process for figuring out what gets accepted, and what >> doesn’t, is too opaque. In particular, I’m going to be making another round >> of changes — I need to fix the Surveyor protocol to use a backtrace just as >> Martin had discussed earlier — this will include RFC updates and code >> changes. > > For things that Martin already agreed to, I'm happy to merge them. > I'll also merge stuff that is an obvious bug fix or that other > community members agree on (as expressed before, I think). Sorry, I do > not feel confident enough to make sort of high-level decisions on > Martin's behalf. I can understand. > >> Yet I’m concerned — Martin seems to be busy as we’ve hardly heard from him >> of late, and the project seems to be running somewhat rudderless. That >> makes it a somewhat scary proposition for companies like mine that are >> planning on using this stuff in production. My fear is that nanomsg itself >> will stagnant due to lack of developer involvement. It would be really >> really unfortunate for libnanomsg to become abandonware. > > I very much agree. I wrote to Martin a few weeks ago to ask him when > he would be able to spend more time on nanomsg. He said that he was > moving to a different country for a new job, where he wasn't > comfortable using work infra to do nanomsg stuff. He said he would be > able to spend some time on nanomsg from this week on, but obviously > that hasn't happened yet. I do hope he will find more time to review > stuff once he's a bit more settled in. I also asked him if we should > appoint more people who can actually merge pull requests -- I think > you would make a good candidate for this. Ok, it sounds like there is hope then. Its not just a matter of being appointed btw, but also having some way to figure out what the standards for quality, etc. should be. The CI is one helpful bit here, but I don’t think it is sufficient. It looks like martin has also responded to my surveyor RFC, so this bodes well. - Garrett > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >