On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Lyle wrote: > On 28/06/2013 02:34, Paul DuBois wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2013, at 8:16 PM, Lyle wrote: >>> On 27/06/2013 22:22, Tim Bunce wrote: >>>> If you're a DBD::mysql user and care about the future of the code, please >>>> help out. >>> I felt the same when I came across this during my research. I didn't have a >>> great deal of luck in my initial efforts to reach out. It seems like >>> Oracle/MySQL have lost a lot of interested in DBD::mysql (hence my post >>> about this a couple of months back). >> Wait. >> >> That thread was about your belief that Oracle was trying to distance itself >> from DBD::mysql or discourage its development. > > Maybe I should have worded it better. The post was more to pose a question > than state a belief. When I looked at the RT queue I saw the same issues that > Tim has brought up now. The POD itself said to use the MySQL bug tracker and > not RT, so I submitted my bug to the DBD::mysql section there. Taking into > account the response I got to my patch on the MySQL bug tracker, that they > removed the DBD::mysql section at the same time, the issues I found myself, > the age of the last release, and the RT queue, it didn't paint a picture of > "this is a priority" and I was given the impression that Oracle/MySQL had > lost interest. > > I wouldn't say it's a belief, as that sounds a lot more certain. But it is > the impression I get. I'm not suggesting that they want to discourage its > development, just that they don't appear to view it as being as important as > it once was. That would go some way to explain why it appears to have > suffered from some neglect and is in need of some tlc.
It's not clear to me that *Oracle* has ever had any particular view about DBD::mysql. It's not an Oracle product. It wasn't a Sun product before Oracle bought Sun. And as far as I am aware, it was not a MySQL AB product before Sun bought MySQL AB. It's true that MySQLers contributed some work to DBD::mysql, but as far as being any official company product ... I have never had that impression. >> Which it is not. It's simply that DBD::mysql is not an Oracle product. >> Oracle is not responsible to fix DBD::mysql bugs. > > I would assume Oracle has a vested interest in it? Why? Absent any statement from Oracle, I don't think we can say. >> That said, if your next statement is correct, that'd be great. >> >>> However, it does appear that some activity has come back. I'm not sure if >>> anyone looked at my patch, but I have since realised that there was a lot >>> more amiss. DBD::mysql really needs to be updated for proper MySQL *5* >>> support. >>> >>> I was talking to Peter about extra hacking sessions at our last Perl meet. >>> I'll make sure this is on the agenda. >> Good, thanks. > > > Lyle >
