On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 06:36:44AM -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: > So we have forks. And forks suck. But that is how MySQL's little inbred > family works. And that is why I am pretty adamant that upstreams be > involved or I will not spend what little time I do have for Debian on > keeping their forks in Debian. […] > I'm not sure you can make a distributed database solution the same > as a browser, which does not need to directly share and serve data in > real time across nodes with other browsers as a primary function. The > reasons for these forks are not mostly political like libreoffice > vs. openoffice. There are deep technical differences that matter a lot > to the users and developers of each fork. OTOH every introduction of a new fork will increase the burden on us to support this "solution" for its technical differences. People will tell us that we cannot remove fork X because their data is all in the format of fork X. If they move away from being drop-in replacements, this will become quite annoying I think (e.g. eglibc is a drop-in replacement, egcs was basically a drop-in replacement, etc.). Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature