Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: beta testing version

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Gary MacDougall <gary(at)freeportweb(dot)com>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-04 06:03:11
Message-ID: 3.0.1.32.20001203220311.01ae8410@mail.pacifier.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 09:42 PM 12/3/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:

>This paragraph from erserver.com:
>
>        eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal
>        functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals
>        to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical
>        datawarehousing, datamining, and eCommerce requirements. These
>        initial developments will be published under the PostgreSQL Open
>        Source license, and made available through our sites, Certified
>        Platinum Partners, and others in PostgreSQL community.
>
>led me (and many others) to believe that this was going to be a tighly
>integrated service, requiring code in the PostgreSQL core, since that's the
>normal use of 'core' around here.

Right.  This is a big source of misunderstanding.  There's still the fact
that 50% of the PG steering committee that are involved in [partially] closed
source development based on PG, though.  This figure disturbs me.

50% is a lot.  It's like ... half, right?  Or did I miss something in the
conversion?

This represents significant change from the past where 0%, AFAIK, were 
involved in closed source PG add-ons.

>Now that I know it's a completely external implementation, I feel bad about
>griping about deadlines. I _do_ wish I'd known this _design choice_ a bit
>earlier, as it impacts how I'll try to do some things with pgsql, but that's
>my own fault for over interpreting press releases and pre-announcements.

IF 50% of the steering committee is to embark on such a task in a closed source
or semi-closed source development model, it would seem common courtesy to inform the
community of the facts as early as they were decided upon.

In fact, it might seem to be common courtesy to float the notion in the community,
to gauge reaction and to build support, before finalizing such a decision.

AFAIC this arrived out of no where, a sort of stealth "50% of the steering committee
has decided to embark on a semi-proprietary solution to the replication problem that
you won't see as open source for [up to] two years after its completion".

That's a paradigm shift.   Whether right or wrong, there's a responsibility to
communicate the fact that 50% of the steering committee has decided to partially
abandon the open source development model for one that is (in some cases) closed
for two years and (in other cases) forever.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-12-04 06:14:51
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-04 06:00:30
Subject: Re: compiling pg 7.0.3 on sco 5.0.5

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group