Mark this project as unmaintained in favor of zeromq/zeromq.js about zeromq.node HOT 13 CLOSED

As a consumer, just let me say "Thank You All".

My take away from all this is everyone is happy again, and moving from this repo to the 4.5 version of zeromq repo was the right thing to do.

Cheers

from zeromq.node.

@lgeiger and @rgbkrk I remember your PRs working with build tests for windows a year or two ago (not sure exactly when but without even checking those ref links) I know what you're talking about with the build issues.

As for attribution, sounds like honest mistakes.. Moreover, congratulations! Because, @ronkorving is onboard and u got official zeromq blessings

At this point I feel much better about all this.

Therefore,I'll start using that one instead of zmq and turn my focus over there in the future instead of trying to fix this one. Add me to the new project's github team task force, there's a ton to do with respect to improving throughput and latency performance of the module

from zeromq.node.

Guys, I opened this issue based on comments from @ronkorving in zeromq/zeromq.js#123 and zeromq/zeromq.js#137. I'm not a contributor on either of these projects, but from an outsider's point of view, this project is not only dead/unmaintained but also unmaintainable based on comments from Ron: "I want to transition to zeromq, away from zmq, because on zmq I can't edit the repo settings (while I maintain the project, the owner never gave me ownership and is not responsive to requests)."
I was hoping to prevent people from things like this: #595

I don't see the big deal from a few commits that accidentally got taken over in the new project that was originally not intended to be an official fork, but hopefully you can work this out. I knew the source of the new zeromq.js as a fork of zmq, and it even says so in several places on the new one. I'd just like to see everyone move to the same place, and why not make that same place part of the official zeromq repo instead of the JustinTulloss? Especially since it sounds like you don't really have full access here in the first place?

from zeromq.node.

@reqshark As far as permissions go, Ron is a maintainer on zeromq.js and has been since it moved to the zeromq org. His membership is private however.

@reqshark You are free to keep running and contributing to zmq. Careful inclusion of the commits should have been done, especially if we ever though it would become a successor to zmq (we did not, which was why it was originally just called zmq-prebuilt as an experiment). Some of the things we did were not transferrable to the original code base (notably fixes for Windows). If you recall, both @lgeiger and I were making PRs and commenting on issues, especially as we would bring our patches over from zmq-prebuilt.

We were never seeking to build an empire or gain credit. We wanted a working version of zeromq for node that worked across all platforms and runtimes with prebuilt binaries to ease installation of other packages.

Respect goes both ways and I've been super appreciative of the foundations laid here. Lukas and many others also put in a lot of work to get it to where it is now. We'll keep responding to PRs and issues, adding more maintainers in line with C4, and moving forward. We all make mistakes.

from zeromq.node.

As Kyle already mentioned, originally our fork was only intended as an experiment. The majority of history is preserved but some careless mistakes may have slipped through. I sincerely apologize for anyone I may have offended.

I just want to add a bit more background and link to a few discussions:
Once zmq-prebuilt did reach a fairly stable state we tried to upstream our changes to JustinTulloss/zeromq.node first by fixing the CI builds (#561 and #562). Unfortunately due to permission issues nobody was able to properly set up Appveyor builds so #562 still remains open today. This is the reason development had to move to another repo in order to provide a easy to install ZMQ binding for Node.js.

from zeromq.node.

And with that I will close this issue. Here's to a constructive collaboration people 👍

from zeromq.node.

@birish2, and lukas @lgeiger

nice fork, kind of you to preserve some of our git history

until you make @ronkorving the chief maintainer of that new project and offer to work with him or any of us, for that matter, you're falling on deaf ears. afterall, he is the community recognized project lead of node zeromq, so I'm afraid your claim to this project will be ignored and basically remain illegitimate without him

only @ronkorving, @kkoopa or someone like that can possibly substantiate and bestow legitimacy to any type of claim to our work over the years here

from zeromq.node.

I can appreciate the reasons for the fork. It offered three things we didn't have here:

• active repo ownership
• it's under the zeromq organization
• prebuilt binaries

Those first two are good reasons to shift, and so I support the move. The last reason could've been contributed to this repo as well, but in the end, having been added there is definitely a good thing.

I don't care too much about taking credit for many things, but I care about giving credit where credit is due a lot. Commits like zeromq/zeromq.js@d48513e (just to pick one example, of "sync with upstream") make me a bit sad. All history is lost, and the people who put blood, sweat and tears into the library disappear from the historical record. That's not appropriate. I don't know how, but it would be good if that could somehow be addressed (suggestions welcome).

from zeromq.node.

ya that's such bad form and not how to do open source, the dishonesty really needs to be fixed before that project can be considered anything meaningful.

like I said, it's not a proper fork without @ronkorving's help

overwriting git history and usurping attribution from the community is one thing, but if you can't figure out how to do git commit --amend --author="contributor name <[email protected]>" then please @lgeiger at a minimum, until you get there, at least maintain the code's historical list of contributors. for a reasonable example check the readme.markdown source at https://github.com/nickdesaulniers/node-nanomsg on how we attribute authors of open source

recommended reading on this subject:

• http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:all#Chapter-The-ZeroMQ-Community
• https://github.com/nickdesaulniers/What-Open-Source-Means-To-Me
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Unix_Programming (or anything by Eric S Raymond)

from zeromq.node.

@ronkorving @reqshark I've just been discussing this briefly with @lgeiger .

zeromq/zeromq.js@d48513e is an honest mistake.

I'm not familiar with the older contributions in the fork, but the last ones do preserve the repository history.

Guys, @rgbkrk @lgeiger @interpretor @ronkorving @reqshark ..., I think we should try to arrange a chat (slack, hangouts, ...) and discuss what would be the best way to move forward.

from zeromq.node.

Hi everyone. I'll update the readme to point to https://www.npmjs.com/package/zeromq.

from zeromq.node.

@ronkorving will you migrate #516 to zeromq.js?
There are very nice improvements I would love to see there.

from zeromq.node.

That's definitely the plan, but my focus hasn't really been on zmq lately :(
So don't hold your breath. But yes, I absolutely hope to get back to it at some point.

from zeromq.node.