|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise source
From: Colin Charles <colin(at)mysql.com>
Date: Wed Sep 19 2007 - 04:48:34 EDT
Hi! >> There are obviously more planned features, besides your own profiling >> patch. I believe the patch queue log is public, even > > Huh? How can that even be true given the recent announcement of > "nothing new in 5.0" and discussion of the failure of the split? My > understanding (from Kaj's posts) is that there will be nothing new at > all in 5.0-community, meaning the only difference henceforth will be > release frequency. Yes, consider this reasoning as something for 5+1. No new features, is a crucial item for stability :) Must think ahead for the future. 5.0 has gone thru too many changes, and I think we shouldn't beat the horse on it any longer... >> Since distributions don't normally *ship* every month, how does this >> make it worse for our user base? > > Mainly because there is now a highly artificial delay in getting bug > fixes out to normal users. Why should a distro maintainer put up with > that artificial delay? The artificial delay works towards *most* distro maintainers benefit. They don't release updates daily or monthly ;-) >> Distributions typically ship once every 6-9 months, with the exception >> of Gentoo and FreeBSD who have a different sort of packaging system >> that handles "ports" >> >> So, frankly, every bit of software you get on your distribution is >> mostly *outdated*. Providing one source release once every 3 months >> (90 days) ensures that distributions are actually getting the freshest >> copy of MySQL Community, and during their "support cycle" can release >> another update in another 3 months, even > > This all assumes that MySQL is stable. Note that 5.0 has proven to be > not so stable. Anyone on 5.0 has been upgrading quite often to fix > stupid bugs, unless they're on 5.0.27 (which has been the most stable > release in recent history). Hence the reason for no more new features, which will help all future mysql releases as well >>> Given the above, this actually doesn't make much sense, since we are >>> using MySQL's own tarballs on DorsalSource (and mirror.ps), there is >>> no need to rename them. >> >> Yes, there is. I believe you cannot call it MySQL Enterprise, because >> that in itself is trademarked > > No, the source releases do not have enterprise in the name, that gets > introduced in the build process and only appears on the resulting > binaries. So by distributing the source releases (called e.g. > mysql-5.0.48.tar.gz) it is not possible to be encroaching on the > enterprise trademark. Correct. select version(); was what i was referring to more than anything > The DorsalSource builds also take care to not use "enterprise" in the As long as you haven't heard from legal, all must be well *grin* -- Colin Charles, Community Relations Manager, APAC MySQL AB, Melbourne, Australia, www.mysql.com Mobile: +614 12 593 292 / Ekiga/Skype/Gizmo: colincharles Web: http://www.bytebot.net/blog/ MySQL Forge: http://forge.mysql.com/ -- MySQL Packagers Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/packagers To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/packagers?unsub=lists@pantek.comReceived on Wed Sep 19 04:49:55 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 10:15:39 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||