Arjen Lentz <ar...@openquery.com> writes: > packages before they will try things. If 5.1 binaries had had PBXT > plugin sitting there, lots more people would have tried it earlier, > filed bugreports and feedback, and Paul would have been where he is > now much quicker. With MariaDB pulling it in it's ok now, but it's > just a darn waste and pity of the earlier time.
I also think this is a very clear description of an important point. ++ > (On the practical side, since it's essentially separate it would get > added during the source tarball prep in the builds, so no action > required inside the maria tree) It is _much_ better to get it inside the tree. Everything in MariaDB development revolves around the bzr tree. Development, buildbot, testing etc. etc. If it's not in the tree, it will be broken by some MariaDB change. And you will discover it only during release work. And we will have to delay the release or omit ograph from that release, and generally waste lots of time and effort. And you will be on your own to fix things. If it's in the tree we will catch problems immediately and have the longest possible time to plan and fix. Of course it's your code so it's your call in the end. But I just don't understand why you would _not_ want it in the tree. Is there some specific concern(s) that we could perhaps address? We can use bzr merge-into (like with xtradb) so you can still maintain a stand-alone tree. We accept storage engines like this into the tree without any copyright assignment, just the GPL 2 is fine. I know I'm preaching in-tree and Buildbot to you all the time :-). But it really is the way development needs to be done to scale to the level we want and utilise the limited resources we have. - Kristian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
