Prashant Srinivasan wrote: > > > Stefan Teleman wrote: >> Lukas Rovensky wrote: >> >>> Sriram, >>> >>> unless there is a business reason to keep MySQL 4.x then I would >>> personally think that we should remove it from Nevada. >>> >> >> +1 >> >> > > Just because this is Nevada and not Solaris, doesn't mean that we should > dilute end user choice. Whether MySQL 4.x should stay, or not, should, > imo, be dictated by > > (0) Compatibility: We *want* to preserve compatibility. Why do we go > through detailed processes, where the watch words are *interfaces* and > *compatibility* for each F/OSS application that we integrate into > OpenSolaris, if we're willing to pull the plug so easily on an older rev? > I do agree that we want to preserve compatibility ... but compatibility with what? Since there is no official OpenSolaris release (please, no flames) out there then I assume that what the community decides now to be part of the OpenSolaris will also define the baseline for future. Once an OpenSolaris release exists then we can talk about preserving compatibility.
> We do tons of research on what versions are expected to be incompatible > with each other, and how we're going to manage to maintain compatibility > on the face of incompatible changes - lets put that to work. > > While OpenSolaris does not guarantee compatibility, we don't want to > throw it away unless we really need to - this is our strength. > > > (1) how important do the OpenSolaris community MySQL users think it is, for > MySQL 4.x to be around? (ie., this should *not* be dictated by Sun's > business reasons). > Agree -- and I expressed my personal opinion as an OpenSolaris community member after reading the info at MySQL website. > (2) Like Brandorr suggested, if MySQL AB still supports this, it means > that people are still using it. Don't pull the plug. > > >> > As for Solaris 10 -- yes we should keep it there -- I just tried to >> > answer Stefan's question. >> > > The community doesn't have a say in piece - Solaris 10 should be > dictated by Sun's business interests. If we're discussing this in the > open, we should make that clear. Else we risk alienating non-Sun > OpenSolaris community members who would have an opinion on the topic. > Again, I just wanted to answer Stefan's question. I think that this quite obvious that Solaris 10 is dictated by Sun. However, the next time I will restrain from using the "we should keep it there" phrase in the Solaris 10 context. > My 0.02$, > -ps > Lukas > > >
