Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Viktor Pogrebnyak
Hi, team.

There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained my code changes.

I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago: https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.

Best regards,
Viktor Pogrebnyak
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Brian Erst
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.

This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.

Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).

Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.

- Brian Erst


From: Lolrim <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Hi, team.

There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained
my code changes.

I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago:
https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not
reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of
complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.

Best regards,
Viktor Pogrebnyak




--
View this message in context: http://quickfix.13857.n7.nabble.com/Unresolved-stability-issue-in-rev-2300-tp6495.html
Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Grant Birchmeier
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


As the guy in charge of QF/n, I need to point out that your comment about .NET being Connamara's "bread and butter" is incorrect.  We use a wide variety of technologies, including .NET, but also Ruby/Rails, Erlang, C++, and more.  (I'm personally knee-deep in Rails right now.)

The increased attention to QF/n is simply because I personally enjoy it, and I try to find time for it.  We actually don't have that many projects that use QF/n (though it'd be nice if we could get more).

I'll leave the formal QF/C++ response to one of my colleagues, but you are right, it is obvious that this project has been lacking attention.

-Grant


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Brian Erst <[hidden email]> wrote:
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.

This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.

Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).

Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.

- Brian Erst


From: Lolrim <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Hi, team.

There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained
my code changes.

I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago:
https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not
reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of
complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.

Best regards,
Viktor Pogrebnyak




--
View this message in context: http://quickfix.13857.n7.nabble.com/Unresolved-stability-issue-in-rev-2300-tp6495.html
Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers



--
Grant Birchmeier
Connamara Systems, LLC
Made-To-Measure Trading Solutions.
Exactly what you need. No more. No less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

K. Frank
In reply to this post by Brian Erst
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Hello Brian -

Thank you for this information.  I have a question and some
comments, below.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Brian Erst
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.

Please let me also express my thanks for QuickFix.  It is good and
useful.  Although not as good as the very best open-source projects,
it is much better than the vast majority of them.

> This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.
>
> Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).
>
> Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.

My question is whether the problem is that Connamara hasn't been
doing the core work (i.e., fixing the bugs and writing the code for new
features), or whether they haven't been managing the open-source
project in a way that it is practical for others in the community to do
the work (i.e., submit patches).

If the QuickFix project is being managed in a way that it is practical
and reasonably convenient for, for example, me to submit a patch, and
if the patch is legitimate, have it reviewed, upstreamed, and released in
a timely manner, then I would see no need to fork and/or move to a
different community.

As long as Connamara is managing the project effectively (as distinct
from doing the work), and if Connamara feels (their decision, of course)
that they don't have the resources to fix a bug or implement a new feature,
I don't see why forking or moving the project would cause those missing
resources to suddenly appear.

(Now if Connamara were impeding progress, either though inattention or
by rejecting legitimate patches, then that would be a good reason to
fork the project or change its governance.  I do see that Viktor was
asking after a patch of his that hadn't been reviewed in over a year.
Is Connamara the only entity that can review / accept / merge patches?
If so, perhaps that's a problem, and the governance should be tweaked.)

If you want or need something in an open-source project, you generally:
hope someone else does it; do it yourself; pay somebody to do it; or
do without.

For example, I wanted to be able to use QuickFix on windows, but have
it built with a windows port of gcc (mingw-w64), rather than with msvc.
QuickFix wouldn't build with mingw-w64 out of the box, so I "ported" it
from msvc to mingw-w64.  When I had questions about bits of code I
wasn't sure about I got the support I needed on this list, primarily from
Connamara.

(I had the sense that I was all alone out here in left field trying to use
mingw-w64 -- my sense is that everybody using QuickFix on windows
wants to use msvc --  so I did not do the additional work that would have
been needed to turn my port into a clean patch and try to get it merged
into the official QuickFix release.)

> - Brian Erst


Happy QuickFix Hacking!


K. Frank

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Brian Erst
In reply to this post by Grant Birchmeier
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


Grant -

I should have put "It seems that" in front of "Their bread and butter", as I don't know the internal sales of Connamara. Having an interested developer who just finds a project fun is another valid reason for lots of commits!  :D

Thanks for the QuickFix/n work. I do think that QuickFIX/C++ should be moved to a different project structure. What that may be is up to Connamara and the QF/C++ developer community.

- Brian


From: Grant Birchmeier <[hidden email]>

As the guy in charge of QF/n, I need to point out that your comment about .NET being Connamara's "bread and butter" is incorrect.  We use a wide variety of technologies, including .NET, but also Ruby/Rails, Erlang, C++, and more.  (I'm personally knee-deep in Rails right now.)

The increased attention to QF/n is simply because I personally enjoy it, and I try to find time for it.  We actually don't have that many projects that use QF/n (though it'd be nice if we could get more).

I'll leave the formal QF/C++ response to one of my colleagues, but you are right, it is obvious that this project has been lacking attention.

-Grant


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Brian Erst <[hidden email]> wrote:
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.

This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.

Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).

Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.

- Brian Erst


From: Lolrim <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Hi, team.

There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained
my code changes.

I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago:
https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not
reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of
complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.

Best regards,
Viktor Pogrebnyak




--
View this message in context: http://quickfix.13857.n7.nabble.com/Unresolved-stability-issue-in-rev-2300-tp6495.html
Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers



--
Grant Birchmeier
Connamara Systems, LLC
Made-To-Measure Trading Solutions.
Exactly what you need. No more. No less.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Oren Miller
In reply to this post by Viktor Pogrebnyak
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comment, and I would first like to point out you are
100% correct that the level of participation from myself lately has been
unacceptable.  I don't want to go into to much detail about why I
haven't been able to commit the time, but would like to propose an
action plan that will put QuickFIX in a better situation as either a
going concern or a forked project.  I'm not going to put forward an
argument for or against a fork as a fork is beyond my control, so I will
only propose what I can control.

First though I would like to point out that I make exactly $0 from
QuickFIX.  I do not work for Connamara.  They have been a valuable
partner, but ultimately management of the project lies with me and it is
my fault not theirs that the project has remained inactive.

So what do I propose?  Here is a mini plan that I would like to see
enacted going forward.

1) Wrap up the release ready to go in source control.  There are many
fixes that are just sort of sitting in the repository that haven't made
it into a formal release.  So let's get that out there first.

2) Complete move to github.  Frankly svn and SourceForge are a huge pain
working with patches submitted to the bug tracker.  It will be wayyyyyy
easier to accept patches if we are working through git.  The added
advantage is that it will become trivial to for QuickFIX once on github.

3) Close out open bugs in the bug tracker.

4) Recruit an additional admin or 2 to help with the project.  I'm sure
Connamara would be willing to help with this, another community member
that uses QuickFIX daily would be a welcome addition.

5) Move to a regular release cycle.  The release cycle currently is at
my whim.  As you can tell that's not a very motivating deadline to hit.
I'm thinking of moving to something like regular 6 month release cycles.

6) remove .NET support from standard QuickFIX.  We killed the JNI api a
while ago as QuickFIX/J matured, and now QuickFIX/n is mature enough as
well.  I spent probably 50% of project time maintaining these two APIs
and that is demoralizing.  Chopping the project down to just bare C++
and letting the satellite projects do their thing should improve
productivity.

So that's all I have for now.  Comments?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev
> 2300
> From: Brian Erst <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, June 17, 2013 10:14 am
> To: Lolrim <[hidden email]>,
> "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
> QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html<hr>As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.
>
>
> This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.
>
> Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).
>
>
> Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.
>
> - Brian Erst
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Lolrim <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:24 PM
> Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300
>  
>
> QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
> QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html
>
> Hi, team.
>
> There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained
> my code changes.
>
> I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not
> reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of
> complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.
>
> Best regards,
> Viktor Pogrebnyak
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://quickfix.13857.n7.nabble.com/Unresolved-stability-issue-in-rev-2300-tp6495.html
> Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers<hr>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev<hr>_______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Viktor Pogrebnyak
This post was updated on .
Hi, Oren.

Your idea to drop support for .NET and move to GitHub sounds great. Until you find more admins/devs to support project it would be nice if someone could review patches twice a month to avoid pressure. There are a few patches being submitted anyway, mostly bug reports.

If one of the devs will have any questions/suggestions about my fix(es) - I'll be glad to discuss them and remove any problems as soon as I can.

Best regards,
Viktor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

James Downs
In reply to this post by Oren Miller
QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html


Oren,
Thanks for putting forth the plan. I too will not make an argument for or against a fork of the project. After all it is an open source project.  Connamara is ready to help. We currently host the builders, Jenkins and are willing to continue doing so.  We would also welcome another administrator.
We can take the lead on making the move to GitHub and a new release.
Jim


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comment, and I would first like to point out you are
100% correct that the level of participation from myself lately has been
unacceptable.  I don't want to go into to much detail about why I
haven't been able to commit the time, but would like to propose an
action plan that will put QuickFIX in a better situation as either a
going concern or a forked project.  I'm not going to put forward an
argument for or against a fork as a fork is beyond my control, so I will
only propose what I can control.

First though I would like to point out that I make exactly $0 from
QuickFIX.  I do not work for Connamara.  They have been a valuable
partner, but ultimately management of the project lies with me and it is
my fault not theirs that the project has remained inactive.

So what do I propose?  Here is a mini plan that I would like to see
enacted going forward.

1) Wrap up the release ready to go in source control.  There are many
fixes that are just sort of sitting in the repository that haven't made
it into a formal release.  So let's get that out there first.

2) Complete move to github.  Frankly svn and SourceForge are a huge pain
working with patches submitted to the bug tracker.  It will be wayyyyyy
easier to accept patches if we are working through git.  The added
advantage is that it will become trivial to for QuickFIX once on github.

3) Close out open bugs in the bug tracker.

4) Recruit an additional admin or 2 to help with the project.  I'm sure
Connamara would be willing to help with this, another community member
that uses QuickFIX daily would be a welcome addition.

5) Move to a regular release cycle.  The release cycle currently is at
my whim.  As you can tell that's not a very motivating deadline to hit.
I'm thinking of moving to something like regular 6 month release cycles.

6) remove .NET support from standard QuickFIX.  We killed the JNI api a
while ago as QuickFIX/J matured, and now QuickFIX/n is mature enough as
well.  I spent probably 50% of project time maintaining these two APIs
and that is demoralizing.  Chopping the project down to just bare C++
and letting the satellite projects do their thing should improve
productivity.

So that's all I have for now.  Comments?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev
> 2300
> From: Brian Erst <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, June 17, 2013 10:14 am
> To: Lolrim <[hidden email]>,
> "[hidden email]"
> <[hidden email]>
>
>
> QuickFIX Documentation: http://www.quickfixengine.org/quickfix/doc/html/index.html
> QuickFIX Support: http://www.quickfixengine.org/services.html<hr>As much as I hate to say it (as QF has been very good), the only time you get traction on fixes/releases is when someone threatens to fork the project.
>
>
> This project lay pretty fallow from 2006-2009, stuck on 1.12.4 (which didn't even support FIX 5.0, released in 2006) until, in March of 2009, developers got so frustrated that a fork was discussed pretty seriously. Suddenly, there was renewed interest by Oren/Connamara, but QuickFix 1.13.0 still took an entire year (Feb 26, 2010) to be released. A couple of quick bug fix releases over the next few months and then... nothing again for three years.
>
> Connamara is a busy consulting firm and has long since moved on from any sort of active management/development of QuickFIX. Oren hasn't even participated in the forum since January of 2011. I don't blame them - they have lots of paying customers for their projects and are quite busy. Their bread and butter comes from .Net development - look at the change log of QuickFIX/n (https://github.com/connamara/quickfixn/commits/master) and see the frequent, active development of that system (four pages of commits this year alone).
>
>
> Management of traditional QuickFIX should be moved to a more active developer community with thanks to Oren and Connamara for getting it to where it is.
>
> - Brian Erst
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Lolrim <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:24 PM
> Subject: [Quickfix-developers] Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300
>
>
> Hi, team.
>
> There is an unresolved stability issue caused by rev [2300] which contained
> my code changes.
>
> I’ve uploaded a patch more than a year ago:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfix/patches/23/ but unfortunately it is not
> reviewed yet. Could some of you take a look, please? There are a lot of
> complaints about stability on forum and I would like to resolve the issue.
>
> Best regards,
> Viktor Pogrebnyak
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://quickfix.13857.n7.nabble.com/Unresolved-stability-issue-in-rev-2300-tp6495.html
> Sent from the QuickFIX - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers<hr>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev<hr>_______________________________________________
> Quickfix-developers mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers



--

Connamara Systems, LLC
Made-To-Measure Trading Solutions.
Exactly what you need. No more. No less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Quickfix-developers mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfix-developers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unresolved stability issue in rev 2300

Viktor Pogrebnyak
In reply to this post by Viktor Pogrebnyak
Would like to thank Oren for accepting my patch to the trunk. In case someone will experience any issues - let me know.