Jeremy Cole wrote:
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 mostly *outdated*.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
> name, they are merely MySQL builds with even version numbers. You'll
> notice that the only place "enterprise" even appears is to name the
> "branch" from which the sources come, which I believe should be fair game.
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/
