Potential project in need of BFT orderers #consensus #fabric-orderer
atom@...
We are leading a standardization effort within SunSpec.org to utilize blockchain for securing the distributed power grid in the US.
|
|
Jason Yellick <jyellick@...>
I've seen some similar confusion to this on Rocketchat as well.
FAB-33 was closed along with hundreds of other items in an overall cleanup of JIRA. Its closure does not indicate any mothballing or abandonment of BFT efforts, in fact, there's been considerably more activity in the space in the recent months; particularly there are some ongoing efforts to develop a golang BFT consensus library that is compatible with Fabric. JIRA can be a good tool for tracking the progress of a designed, approved, and mid-implementation item, but it's the wrong place to look for future work. Future work is to be submitted and approved as an RFC https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-rfcs/ so I would watch that space for updates. Thanks, ~Jason
----- Original message -----
|
|
Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
You really should use a different
status for deferred feature requests than "Closed", because
"decided not to implement this ever" is a closer inference from
"Closed" than "maybe someday". Jira is depended upon as a
future-feature-request tool by lots of other projects and asking
people to know it's differently treated at Fabric is another
cognitive burden to new contributors. At the very least I suggest
updating FAB-33 with a link to new work.
Brian
On 2/3/20 7:44 AM, Jason Yellick wrote:
-- Brian Behlendorf Executive Director, Hyperledger bbehlendorf@... Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|
David Enyeart
To clarify, as Jason mentioned the Jira FAB-33 got caught up in a recent mass cleanup of stale issues that hadn't been touched in a long time. Any issue that was automatically closed in error can be re-opened, we simply ask that a comment be added to explain the rationale for re-opening. I've re-opened FAB-33 and commented that it is targeted for a future release. You really should use a different status for deferred feature requests than "Closed", because "decided not to implement this ever" is a closer inference from "Closed" than "maybe someday". Jira is depended upon as a future-feature-request tool by lots of other projects and asking people to know it's differently treated at Fabric is another cognitive burden to new contributors. At the very least I suggest updating FAB-33 with a link to new work. Brian On 2/3/20 7:44 AM, Jason Yellick wrote:
FAB-33 was closed along with hundreds of other items in an overall cleanup of JIRA. Its closure does not indicate any mothballing or abandonment of BFT efforts, in fact, there's been considerably more activity in the space in the recent months; particularly there are some ongoing efforts to develop a golang BFT consensus library that is compatible with Fabric. JIRA can be a good tool for tracking the progress of a designed, approved, and mid-implementation item, but it's the wrong place to look for future work. Future work is to be submitted and approved as an RFC https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-rfcs/ so I would watch that space for updates. Thanks, ~Jason
----- Original message -----
From: atom@... Sent by: fabric@... To: fabric@... Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Hyperledger Fabric] Potential project in need of BFT orderers #consensus #fabric-orderer Date: Sun, Feb 2, 2020 6:16 PM We are leading a standardization effort within SunSpec.org to utilize blockchain for securing the distributed power grid in the US. --
|
|
Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
Excellent, thanks! I should have piped
up on this earlier when I saw the call for mass-closure of old
issues.
Brian
On 2/3/20 10:18 PM, David Enyeart
wrote:
-- Brian Behlendorf Executive Director, Hyperledger bbehlendorf@... Twitter: @brianbehlendorf
|
|