7 ms·
Crossroads I/O is a fork of the ZeroMQ project
- jameskilton 15y agoSo I can't find the reason why this project exists instead of just contributing to 0MQ directly.
- to3m 15y agoFrom the web site (http://www.crossroads.io/faq http://www.crossroads.io/faq): ```Why was Crossroads I/O forked from ZeroMQ? The contribution and trademark policies of the ZeroMQ project were, as of March 2012, incompatible with our long-term goals. Who is behind the fork? The main work on the fork was done by two of the original developers of ZeroMQ, Martin Sustrik and Martin Lucina, with help and advice from other members of the ZeroMQ community.'''
- Ecio78 15y agoI've read it, and yet not understood which are those incompatibilities in the goals
- aidenn0 15y ago"To grow such an ecosystem the project must be fully vendor neutral, and implement a liberal (e.g. Linux-style) trademark policy allowing use of the trademark for third party distributions of the software, as well as for plug-ins and extensions."
- mcantelon 15y agoAh, a Centos/Red Hat thing.
- yk_42 15y agoAs I understand it (as a regular on the ZeroMQ and Crossroads mailing lists), the reasons are as follows: 1) Trademark issues - the original developers of ZMQ have been prohibited from using the ZeroMQ trademark and, thus, from making official releases. 2) The new ZeroMQ contribution policy[1], in which pull requests are merged without review and then later reverted/enhanced if necessary, is seen as incompatible with the goals of some of the lead developers. These developers prefer a more rigorous review policy. There are more reasons, but from what I can tell, those are the main ones that haven't fully been covered here. [1]: http://www.zeromq.org/docs:contributing http://www.zeromq.org/docs:contributing (see "Philosophy").
- mato 15y agoIf you want more background to what led up to our fork of ZeroMQ, read the flamewar on zeromq-dev from February carefully hidden in a "C++ assertion" thread at http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/015675.html http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/0..., or from http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/015758.html http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/0... which relates directly to the trademark question.
- DennisP 15y agoI noticed there's a compatibility library with 0mq. What are the technical changes that require a compatibility library? This seems to imply there are API differences, rather than just the same code with different development policies going forward.
- obtu 15y agoThe compatibility configure flag seems to be used to also install the crossroads library as libzmq.so.
- obtu 15y agoI'd say “personal differences” (regardless of the deal about trademarks and code review), but it still surprises me; I thought the zmq developers were a tight-knit bunch. Maybe the drama manifests itself in more extreme ways because they know each other so well, but it does seem dysfunctional.
- raphinou 15y agoI agree with you. When you fork a project, there better be a good reason. And when there is a good reason, there's no reason to be vague in the explanation. (and I can't think of a vaguer explanation than what they write) Giving an example of a problem solved by the fork would help, though I'm not sure a solid example of a goal not possible within 0mq can be found based on the project goals.
- rch 15y agoLooks like a move from GPL to LGPL. I had assumed that zmq was BSD licensed to begin with - so I've learned something.
- necubi 15y agoThat can't be it, as 0mq is also LGPL. From the footer of zeromq.org: ØMQ is free software licensed under the LGPL And in every source file: 0MQ is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. As I have some investment in the 0mq ecosystem, it would be nice to know what this means in the long run for that project.
- densh 15y agoAccording to [1] ZeroMQ is licensed under LGPL with static linking exception. [1] http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing
- ori_b 15y agoYou can't do that without the consent of every contributor. At least not legally.
- dmarble 15y agoNot exactly. The zmq library is already LGPL. It's the plugins and examples that are GPL. That might be a potential reason crossroads I/O was created -- to start an ecosystem of plugins that are LGPL too. source: http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing http://www.zeromq.org/area:licensing
- krakensden 15y agoI think this email from the guy in charge of 0MQ now is fairly clear: http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/015763.html http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2012-February/0... On a related note, developers can be mean
- hogu 15y agofrom reading the email thread it appears this is the main issue: zeromq is looser about what ends up in master. They view master as sort of a global staging area, and what ends up in release branches is viewed as stable/vetted code. As a result, master can be quite unstable. The people that forked wanted a more stable master, with lots of code reviews before patches end up in master.
- arjn 15y agoCan someone please elaborate ? I very recently started an investigation (proof of concept) into zeromq for my team. What are the long term implications ?
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoThe real question for me, since I very recently brought 0MQ into my project: should I stay with that or switch to Crossroads? I don't want to get stuck on the lagging branch.
- psadauskas 15y agoFrom the FAQ: Why do you not accept pull requests? Pull requests can change while being reviewed. This makes it impossible to ensure that the code being merged is the same code that has been reviewed and discussed, which compromises integrity of the codebase. If only Git had some sort of cryptographically secure token that would uniquely identify commits, and make tampering evident.
- mato 15y agoIt does. But to my knowledge, no one submits pull requests as a set of SHA1 hashes.
- storborg 15y agoWhat is a pull request if not an ordered list of SHA1 hashes and comments?
- technoweenie 15y agoGitHub pull requests are tracked by a base and a head commit. Usually, base is master, and head is some feature branch. This allows the pull request on GitHub to pull in new changes to the commit as a discussion forms around it. So in that sense, he is correct. There's no way to ensure that clicking the merge button is indeed merging what I think it's merging. Now that I type that, we could easily just include the latest SHA in the form and check that. Problem solved! Alternatives to this are: * Merge manually from the command line. This is typically what we do at GitHub. * Request that people file pull requests with a SHA as the pull request head. This makes it impossible to update the pull request with future commits. * Don't use pull requests.
- snprbob86 15y ago> we could easily just include the latest SHA in the form and check that Please do! I've accidentally merged the wrong code on a few occasions. While we're making feature requests: * The order of commits on the "Commits" tab sometimes shuffle around, especially when a history contains a merge. * Would be nice to let me annotate code (with comments) before "Send Pull Request". Sometimes I want to make some comments to guide a reviewer. * Browser-push updates of comment threads! * Let me comment on a file, not just a particular line, particularly empty ones. * Discussions are often hard to follow via email because insufficient or misleading context is included. * 100 other things I can't think of at the moment :-) I love GitHub; it's critical to the way we work. Thanks!