From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
Date: | 2005-05-05 18:17:12 |
Message-ID: | 427A6328.7080108@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Do we want to consider adding in a "mirror" of the JDBC/ODBC stuff in
> the same way? Based on the direction we are taking, I'm all for it ..
> the idea being that when beta starts, the JDBC folk (or ODBC, or ?)
> would submit a mega patch to be applied to the tree and tag'd in with
> the rest of it, and beta distribution copies built up ... development
> of the various drivers would remain on gborg/pgfoundry where they are
> now, all we'd have in our CVS would be 'the released version' ...
>
>
This is just a horrible horrible idea. Code needs to have one
authoritative home. I know the dreadful fate of Cassandra, but please
think very carefully about this. The "mega patch just before release"
would bite quite horribly. I have had to manage projects where we had to
sync between repos - even in a much smaller more manageable commercial
environment it sucked badly, and we quickly abandoned it.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-05-05 18:25:45 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 18:06:41 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 18:19:15 | Re: A real puzzler: ANY way to recover? |
Previous Message | Samngan | 2005-05-05 18:16:46 | Re: REMOVE |