On Nov 22, 2016 5:55 PM, "Nivedita Singhvi" <niveditasinghvi at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/22/2016 03:39 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> >> On domingo, 20 de novembro de 2016 19:51:53 PST Heldt-Sheller, Nathan wrote: >>> >>> I ran into the same build issue yesterday. IoTivity 1.2.0 worked without >>> issues when it was released. But it looks like the update to TinyCBOR >>> since then has broken the 1.2.0 release. >> >> As the TinyCBOR maintainer and the one who introduced the source-incompatible >> change, let me explain: the source-incompatible change was required in >> TinyCBOR to support building an application that uses a C89 strict compiler: >> the anonymous union that we used to use is not permitted then. I had the >> submitter wait several months between their pull request and the release of >> the change, so that other projects (IoTivity included) could adapt and not get >> broken. >> >> Let me also point out that I did fix IoTivity almost 4 months ago when we first >> introduced the breakage (see commit 3041fae14b358c51873b08967dc868080f47d819, >> dated July 30). >> >> Or at least I thought I had. >> >> The code that got broken was the security code, which was already there when I >> made that change. My guess? It wasn't enabled in my build because SECURE=0 is >> the default. >> >> So, sorry, but I wash my hands. >> > > I don't think any of us wants to blame anyone, or cares about which > individual is responsible. Bugs happen, this is normal in software development, > and managing complex projects and releases is inevitably going to have > issues. Sometimes we do have to break APIs and interfaces and builds and > so on to move forward. None of that is at all an issue, and I hope none of > the iotivity developers feel they can't do their jobs without undue pressure. > > I can't speak for others, but for myself, I'd only like to make sure that any > such breakage (and available resolution) is communicated clearly to users. > And the critical importance of having some available, working release of iotivity > going forward is understood by developers. None of the above is in any way > in conflict with iotivity project philosophy, I hope. > > We are all pretty invested in having iotivity become successful, and I hope > that the above is seen as a necessary part of that. I appreciate the developers > who are working hard to contribute code and tests very much, and am even > more deeply grateful to the developers who go out of their way to help users > with problems and testing (especially Philippe Coval), etc. They're doing a great > job. > very, very well said. the iotivity project annoys the hell out of me, but that's a very general annoyance, not a complaint about anybody in particular. the problems are to some extent baked in - the major contributors are working for the big Dogs, they have no personal stake, they are not spending sleepless nights worrying about this stuff, by contrast to the startup guys in a garage. which is fine; I'm grateful that the Big players are investing, but it must be said that while this is open source it is not really open.
2 cents - gregg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161122/aacb83da/attachment.html>
