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

Re: beta testing version

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
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>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-04 03:59:05
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0012032356040.1558-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > 
> > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > > > ever you want.
> > > 
> > > Thats a given.
> > 
> > okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derived
> > from uncompensated parties ... they work over top of PgSQL, but are not
> > integrated into them, nor have required any changes to PgSQL in order to
> > make it work ...
> > 
> > ... so, where is this whole outcry coming from?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Apologies from our side as well ... failings on the english language and
choice of said on our side ... the last thing that we want to do is have
to maintain patches across multiple versions for stuff that is core to the
server ... Thomas/Vadim can easily correct me if I've missed something,
but to the best of my knowledge, from our many discussions, anything that
is *core* to the PgSQL server itself will always be released similar to
any other project (namely, tested and open) ... including hooks for any
proprietary projects ... the sanctity of the *core* server is *always*
foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gary MacDougallDate: 2000-12-04 04:17:14
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Ross J. ReedstromDate: 2000-12-04 03:42:37
Subject: Re: beta testing version

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