Re: [paho-dev] Contribution of MQTT Servers (Mosquitto and RSMB)

[Roger Light <roger@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

I agree that option 1) makes the most sense. We might as well start
out on the right foot.

I'll look into getting the proposal into HTML and a presentation done
in the meantime. If there's anything you'd like to contribute to the
latter I'd be grateful.

Cheers,

Roger



On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Ian Craggs
<icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmm.  I've just realized that I have more process to go through here at IBM
> than I thought to get RSMB code released.  I thought I was near the top of
> the hill, but it's just another ridge :-(  I hope it won't take too long to
> really get to the top.
>
> The options I think we have:
>
> 1) wait a while for me to find out just how much longer it will take for
> RSMB code to be released, or
> 2) change the proposal a little to either a) omit the RSMB initial
> contribution or b) make the RSMB initial contribution optional. If option a)
> RSMB code could be contributed at a later date.
>
> I would prefer 1) because I would like IBM and RSMB to be there at the start
> of the project, and I can use this fact in the internal IBM discussions
> about the release of RSMB, but not if it all takes too long.
>
> Sorry about this.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 08/12/2013 09:28 PM, Roger Light wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The changes look good to me, I think it's in pretty good shape now.
>>
>> I agree with what Ian says about code merging and just to add that I
>> look forward to seeing the rsmb code and finding the bits that it does
>> better than mosquitto.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Ian Craggs
>> <icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian, Mike,
>>>
>>> to answer the question of how Mosquitto and RSMB code bases will be
>>> merged.
>>>
>>> My view is that this proposal is as much as a "declaration of intent"
>>> from
>>> IBM, as much as a contribution of code.   It will signal that the future
>>> of
>>> RSMB is in open source, here in Eclipse.  That signal is for people
>>> inside
>>> IBM as well as in the open source community.  Whether RSMB code is
>>> actually
>>> used in a final Mosquitto product is secondary - there will be no forced
>>> merging.
>>>
>>> IBM will have already contributed to the project: the design of MQTT and
>>> much of the external behaviour of Mosquitto itself, which was originally
>>> derived from RSMB.  The design of RSMB, though it looks simple, was
>>> influenced by my years of experience with MQTT servers, and with the
>>> collaboration of a number of other IBM folk, like Andy Stanford-Clark,
>>> Dave
>>> Conway-Jones, Nick O'Leary and Dave Locke.
>>>
>>> There a few functions that exist in RSMB that do not currently in
>>> Mosquitto
>>> - some serviceability aids in RSMB were required by IBM to build a
>>> supported
>>> product for instance.   Both RSMB and the existing Mosquitto projects use
>>> conditional compilation to allow smaller, less functional executables to
>>> be
>>> built as desired.   If there is function which IBM wants, but the
>>> Mosquitto
>>> project leads do not, it could be applied by patch or conditional
>>> compilation by IBM (but would still be open source).  If code from RSMB
>>> is
>>> useful, having the codebase contributed already makes it easy to pick and
>>> choose.
>>>
>>> Either way, I intend to contribute to the project, whether through code
>>> or
>>> tests or documentation, or in other ways.  And we already have a codebase
>>> which satisfies the draft aims of the project.
>>>
>>> Ian Craggs
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/12/2013 04:56 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposal looks good to me. Has there been a discussion on how the
>>>>> RSMB
>>>>> and Mosquitto code bases will be merged?
>>>>
>>>> Step one is to get both code bases contributed to a common project under
>>>> the
>>>> same license. Before that happens, the code merge conversation is rather
>>>> moot. Especially since RSMB's code is not currently available in open
>>>> source
>>>> for others to see.
>>>>
>>>>
>