> > I'll trust a MySQL alpha release before the final production releases of > > most vendors. In fact, we're using 4.0.1 in our production > environment with > > great success. > Its your system, and if you think it worth the risc, it is of course you > decision to do so to, ;) but I would never ever trust _any_ code in an > alpha-development stage. Anyone how does that is likely to get a big > surprise, sooner or later - or they are just very lucky if > nothing happens. > > Using Alpha-code in a production environment is not only doing a > high risk experiment, but also nothing I never would recommend > someone to do with my honor preserved.
My point was that the developers of MySQL tend to be much more conservative than other developers, and what they call "alpha" is typically vastly more stable than the beta (and sometimes production) releases of other vendors. > Does anyone more than me thinks that this smells lack of system > testing? ;) Or perhaps they're better at writing robust code than you are? Let me just say this: I've never known MySQL to lose data -- even with the alpha releases I've used -- but I *have* seen production, "stable", Oracle releases scramble data (or seg fault, or ...). > I'm impressed if they, really, can achieve this goal - which I > of courses doesn't believe in a single second. ;) Do you often pre-judge products based on experience with unrelated vendors and products? It seems to me you're saying "Gee, such a statement has never been true for Windows (or Word, or PostgreSQL, or whatever) so it must not ever be true for any product." > So why not call it release to avoid confusion then? Again, the developers of MySQL are much more conservative than most, which is why their production releases tend to be vastly more stable than the production releases of other vendors -- and why they can do things like ship a release with no known bugs. > First rule: Every release date slips. ;) > > Lemma: If released at correct date, either the software is to > buggy to use, or it misses, important, promised features of > that release. ;) Again: You're projecting your lack of skill (or the arrogance upon which your project timeline estimates are based) onto others. > That's strange. I would say that stored procedures is a highly > useful thing > to have had implimented in a RDBMS. What's strange about it? They don't plan on releasing it until they have an implementation that is fast, and robust. Funny, I didn't see one single comment in your e-mail that contributes to the discussion in a meaningful way. Your snide comments only serve as an irritant. Perhaps you're trying to show everyone how smart you are, but instead you just come off as arrogant and ignorant. -JF --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
