[os-infrastructure] State of the onion
Andrew Ross
Andrew.Ross at ingres.com
Tue Jun 10 03:59:34 PDT 2008
Thanks Steve.
That is what I intend this page to be for:
http://community.ingres.com/wiki/OpenInfrastructure
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Stephen Ball
Sent: June 9, 2008 11:48 PM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
In the approximate words of the hitchhikers guide, before the planet
earth was blasted by the Vogons to make way for a galactic bypass "The
plans have been posted in the council office in the corner of the gamma
quadrant for two millennia, it's your fault if you couldn't be bothered
to read them".
I think the problem is not in the intent to be open, but in the
execution. People have to know about where to find the information, and
it's not easy when it's all over the place, and largely speaking we
can't blame Andrew for that. We need to organize our information
properly; we are a database company after all.
I propose that we create a wiki page which collects together all the
links and information on the proposed open source infrastructure. As to
whether this is on the internal wiki or the external one should be a
matter for discussion; I think that we need to get at least some basics
agreed upon first before we start to make the information public though.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
Andrew Ross
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:33 AM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
opensourcecommunity
Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
David,
I don't feel I've ignored anything. Could you please provide an example
so I know what you mean?
So you know, I felt os-infrastructure should be open. The rationale
behind keeping it closed was that we should get our own house in order
first before inviting in community to participate.
Also, if you check, you'll see it was me that invited you to the
janitors call. No one requested it.
The calls were disbanded as the team didn't want to do them anymore and
wanted to use C.D.I. Since then, I've had private requests to start them
up again and I'll do so after the IUA.
Tidy up some loose ends:
VIP talk
http://community.ingres.com/forums/getfile.php?durl=60041&frm=vip&lic=no
ne&export=no
The infrastructure plan, and my presentation from the summit:
http://community.ingres.com/wiki/OpenInfrastructure
The requirements aren't as clear as the original spreadsheet, but
they're visible from the wiki.
http://community.ingres.com/w/files/0/07/Summit_2008_v1.0.pdf
(see slide 5, slide 7 especially. They list what we're trying to
accomplish)
I'll dig up some of the minutes & planning emails from our Janitors
meetings and post them here too.
The plan was for a test environment (http://bugs.ingres.com/ &
http://code.ingres.com). The purpose of which was to get us where we are
now, allow prototyping and testing using svn/trac to identify any
issues. It is also usable in the meantime for community project such as
our Geospatial project, snmp agent, drivers, trac, lxr, and more.
If you feel this mailing list, or any of the other facilities are
exclusive, please promote them to make others aware.
Last of all, everyone has been asked for input. This is what this has
been about. What's been done has been an aweful lot to fit in 10%. ;-)
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
[mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf Of
David Tondreau
Sent: June 9, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true open
sourcecommunity
Subject: Re: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
Andrew,
This is not about criticizing you, it is about doing what is best for
the business. People disagree with me all the time. I'm cool with that
because I don't think I have an exclusive angle on "the right thing." I
like it when really smart people (and there are a LOT of smart people
around Ingres -- especially the people on this list) have a different
point of view than me because I get to learn from them. What I am
seeing is that I have raised some questions and at least four people who
I think are pretty darn smart (Bodo, Durwin, Alex and Roger) have
expressed some level of agreement. That doesn't mean we have all the
answers, it just means there are some issues and more than one person
thinks the issues are valid. I find it curious that one would simply
want overlook the concerns of talented group of folks combining for over
125 years of professional experience....
Now, for the record:
* There were no engineering wide e-mails or other communications
that I am aware of announcing the efforts you are working on that
I am aware of.
* I do not follow C.D.I. (presuming you mean comp.databases.ingres
because that is otherwise not in my vernacular) because its not --
or at least historically hasn't been -- relevant to my job.
* Neither myself or any other member of the OpenROAD team that I am
aware of has ever been asked about our requirements or
recommendations for open source.
* I did not know anything about your efforts prior to February.
* Bill suggested Bodo and I be included on until the February 5
"Janitors" call. We presented the plans for taking OpenROAD open
source. That was it.
* I got no follow up from that call, no meeting notes, and no
invites to subsequent calls.
* I have never been sent a meeting invitation to any of your other
conference calls.
* We voiced the same concerns that have been articulated in this
trail to you at the summit. None of this is new.
* There was no announcement of the availability of this list and if
cloaking it and not spreading the word about it isn't an effort to
keep it restricted, I don't know what is.
It's distinctly possible that as a remote employee, I'm just out of the
loop. If that's the case, our problems are much larger.
Andrew, I never said I had a plan. Everything I am doing relating to
open source is wide open and a work in progress. I'm sure its quite
flawed. We are doing everything we can and making a lot of it up as we
go -- because I don't have any explicit direction to follow. We're
emulating successful business open source (like RedHat) as often as we
can. We created the new look on the wiki which was reviewed by Bill and
Product Management before we took it live. We created two new mail
lists and sent out e-mails across the company to get anyone interested
to sign up. We built a sizable list of internal members of the
community and then started working on the external members. We've
announced all our efforts in the forums. We've kept the news up do date
and do regular updates to everyone on the lists. We've distributed DDSs
on the wiki and and had public design reviews for new OpenROAD features.
We have the beginnings of project pages and community involvement but
the wiki is way to limiting to do it right. But what we're not doing is
disrupting the customer base or our ability to support them. I was
basically told that anything that would do that is off the table.
You, on the other hand, did say you had a plan. According to your
timeline, "the plan" was presented to senior management and approved in
January. Then you gave a VIP webinar in March and a session at the
summit. I'll go back and ask the questions again that I asked in my
last mail and is still unanswered:
* Can I have a copy of "the plan" now?
* Why didn't we get a copy of it in January after it was approved?
* Why was support, q/a and engineering not asked for input on it
before it was presented?
I don't understand why these and the other questions we've can't be
discussed and factored into "the plan."
David
On 06/09/2008 12:24 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I have to run to a meeting but I'll reply quickly now.
>
> We announced the work via. C.D.I., I did a VIP talk about it, I did a
> talk at the engineering summit.
>
> I hosted a regular conference call about this effort, sent out minutes
> to the team each time, and increased the number of people attending by
> 2 to 3x. I also re-established the IRC channel.
>
> I told anyone who would listen internally and encouraged others to do
> the same. The os-infrastructure list was a result of this as well. It
> certainly wasn't top secret nor were any efforts made to keep it
> secret from anyone.
>
> David. You knew about this work months ago, didn't you?
>
>
> So, lots of criticism for me. I'm not so sure it's fair. It seems kind
> of pointless criticizing me. We absolutely need the tools. We
> absolutely need to built up some policy and procedures. I agree we
> need the wiki too.
>
> So all that said, please share your plan then. Let me know what you
> have in mind so I can know where to help.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Tondreau
> Sent: June 9, 2008 10:54 AM
> To: Andrew Ross
> Subject: Re: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
>
> Andrew,
>
> You said: "We put together a plan in January that detailed where we'd
> be now. The senior management team supported it."
>
> Really? I'd love to see a copy of "the plan." I never new one
existed.
>
> Any reason why "the plan" was not shared with the rest of support, Q/A
> and engineering in January when it was presented to and supported by
> senior management? Is "the plan" top secret or something? More
> importantly, is there any reason why support, Q/A and engineering
> didn't have input into "the plan" leading up to its presentation?
> I've been though all of my e-mails and can't find any reference to
> being informed about an open source plan for this year.
>
> I think this just goes back to my main point in my post: we lack
> organization and transparency in our open source efforts. Forget the
> community, we can't even get the communication and planning going
> among ourselves. This mail list is the first forum I've seen in which
> anyone has a chance to actually get a glimpse of what is going on in
> the inner circles and even it was cloaked -- with no organization-wide
> announcement of its existence to this day! Even now, you have a lot
> of people just finding out about it. That just doesn't make sense
> unless you are trying to be selective about participation.
>
> The process you seem to want to focus on is all about "source," not
> about "open." And THAT is the problem. That we the edict that I
> heard from Bill was this: "Go engineer in the open." Engineering
> starts with plans and designs, not code. That's where we should be
> focusing our efforts. If we did, we could get potentially get
> community members to contribute something that WAS higher up the
> priority pole. We need to tell the community our direction and then
get them to help us get there.
> We need to lead. I agree with Alex -- what we lack right right now is
> leadership. Where are Ingres products going and how can the community
> help us go there? That's the plan we need.
>
> That's why the OpenROAD team has trained its open source efforts on
> the wiki, not subversion. That's why we chose (without anyones
> permission or direction and in direct contradiction to the current
> DBMS model) -- to use a Fedora style project for OpenROAD. Thus
> Empire. We wanted to show leadership. We wanted to craft the
> message, develop the community, and get people participating. So far
> its working but its still early on. We have signed up 20 community
> developers (they have signed a contribution agreement) and another 22
> community members (they want to be part of the party). What they are
> all asking for now is how they can participate -- what projects we
> need help with and what the plans are for OpenROAD. That's where my
> current struggle is. Not a single one has asked why they can't see
> the code in an online repository. When we have 10 code submissions a
> day from the outside, I'll start the process of trying to figure out
> how to solve that problem. Like Durwin said, that's not going to
> occur for the next 12 months so its nothing to worry about.
>
> My suggestion is simple. We're pretty good at "source" already.
> Let's figure out how to be "open." Then we can worry about how to be
> "open source" in a way that exceeds what other major open source
> projects are doing today -- if there is a compelling business reason
> for that. I think that's probably what Bill and the board are really
looking for.
>
> David
>
>
> On 06/09/2008 08:55 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>> The direction has been set by Roger, Tom, Bill, Emma, Deb, the board,
>> and others long ago. Agreed they haven't stated specifically which
>> tools to use and how to use them. Frankly, that isn't their job, it's
>>
> ours.
>
>> Regarding a brighter future with an open source community (or not):
>> Look at open source from the point of view of an external company
>> deciding between Oracle, DB2, Informix, SQL Server, etc. and Ingres.
>> Why choose Ingres if it is just another closed source RDBMS with
>> statistically insignificant market share, a mild feature deficiency
>> compared to the industry leaders, and comparatively few resources?
>> Being open source differentiates us. Successfully developing an open
>> source community gives us a shot at competing with the market
leaders.
>>
>
>
>> If you disagree here, please explain why as I would like to
>>
> understand.
>
>> Previous to Ingres, I worked at Nortel where over 70K people were
>> layed off. Nortel was the multi-billion dollar leader in digital
>> telephony. In a matter of years, global competition, deregulation,
and
>>
>
>
>> commoditization of the telecommunications industry brought them to
>> their knees. This is relevant to us in two ways. The big 3 are not
>> immune, and secondarily we're much smaller and things could go south
>> for us much quicker and easier. What would happen if a significant
>> portion of our VMS customer base decided Oracle on Linux was a good
>> enough deal for them to move off Ingres on VMS?
>>
>> The point is there are plenty of business reasons to go open source
>> and that the leadership team clearly did state that is our direction.
>>
>> Given that we set a direction to go open source, and pretty much next
>> to nothing happened, my work and presentation was an empirical look
at
>>
>
>
>> what it means to be open source, what deficiencies we have, and start
>> addressing them. My approach was to start with the things we know we
>> can realistically accomplish in the short term. Look at this as my
>> 10%+. In that light, I can't understand why the criticism. Would it
be
>>
>
>
>> better I did nothing? How precisely is this "Gosh we need to use open
>> source and use open source tools to do it?"? That's a bit derogatory
>> don't you think?
>>
>> I am not saying the plan to open source success is plotted in fine
>> detail and available in PDF form for review. Quite the contrary, we
>> have just gotten started.
>>
>> We put together a plan in January that detailed where we'd be now.
The
>>
>
>
>> senior management team supported it. We then executed on it and got
it
>>
>
>
>> done. We now have tools, infrastructure, a core team of people
>> helping, and more engagement in the community than we've had in a
long
>>
>
>
>> time. It isn't perfect, but it is something people can rally around
>>
> and improve.
>
>> Again, for my 10%, I see this as pulling my share and then some.
>>
>> What I'm suggesting to people is to get involved, help define what's
>> left to do, and we'll review/approve/execute again. Be specific
>> stating what's missing, propose options, propose who needs to be
>>
> involved, etc.
>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Hanshaw
>> Sent: June 9, 2008 7:48 AM
>> To: Andrew Ross
>> Cc: David Tondreau
>> Subject: FW: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
>>
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> "gosh we need to use open source and use open source tools to do it"
>> pretty much summarises your presentations at the dev summit and Emma
>> backed up that message by saying "We must be open source and you
>> should all dedicate 10% of your time to Open Source."
>> This was THE message of the summit. I'm baffled by your response. If
>> this was not the message why are we looking at svn at all?
>> My own feeling was that the message also included an under tone of
>> "Get on the open source train or else". I'm OK with that. Business is
>> business. I'm a paid employee that likes getting paid. We all do what
>> the business wants us to do because it pays the bills. David has
>> bravely asked difficult questions despite the under tone in the
>> development summit message. I take my hat off to him for doing so. As
>> long as the difficult questions are being asked constructively, it's
>> all good and this should be encouraged. More importantly answers
>> should be given. I'm not sure your response does that.
>> I do agree that a good Open Source policy will be good for us in the
>> long term. The problem is we don't have a policy to implement, good
or
>>
>
>
>> bad. The questions are bigger than lone developers. They need senior
>> management input from Sales, Marketing, Product Management and
>> Development. Who's driving that input and policy process?
>> I'm happy to have hopped on to the open source train. Doing so did
>> not erase my memory. I still know who waved the open source flag at
>> the start of the summit. If between the lines you really didn't say
>> "gosh lets be open source" then what were you saying?
>> I believe our biggest problem at the moment is that the game plan is
>> not more refined than "Gosh lets be open source". If there is a more
>> detailed plan no one's told me the detail. To me this was the
>> important point that David had raised. Saying that what have we done
>> so far was done by interns does not tell us that we actually have a
>> more refined game plan or what the details are if we do.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
>> [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf
>> Of Andrew Ross
>> Sent: 06 June 2008 19:40
>> To: Discussions about the infrastructure needed to support a true
>> opensourcecommunity
>> Subject: RE: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I would like to point out that the work to develop Ingres' open
source
>>
>
>
>> infrastructure such as svn, trac, lxr, and more started in January
and
>>
>
>
>> was largely done using free interns and thus cost us very little. The
>> work ahead is being scoped and will have a calculated price range as
>> part of the business plan. I think you're being unduly harsh for
>> something that is a few months old. Moving forward, I'm asking you to
>> help ensure the list is complete, and size up any items on that list.
>> This would be most helpful.
>>
>> I'm not sure who you were referring to about the part gosh we need to
>> be open source & use popular open source tools. I haven't hear that
>>
> myself.
>
>> I hope that wasn't the message you felt coming across from me.
>>
>> >From a business perspective, there are very real benefits that arise
>> from open source:
>> - lowered development costs
>> - reduced risks
>> - reduced transaction costs doing business with others
>> - faster trust
>> - improved time to market
>> - reduce marketing & sales costs (via. Mindshare)
>> - increased innovation
>> (I could go on, and others could add to this list)
>>
>> This is how a graduate student's project evolved into something that
>> is challenging multi-billion dollar companies and how open source is
a
>>
>
>
>> multi-billion dollar business in its own right.
>>
>> If indeed 95% of the work will always be Ingres employees, meaning
>> we're open code, but not open source. It also likely means nothing
>> much is different from our closed source days and draws into question
>> what we expect will change for the business. Is this what you truly
>>
> believe?
>
>> Andrew
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com
>> [mailto:opensource-infrastructure-bounces at lists.ingres.com] On Behalf
>> Of David Tondreau
>> Sent: June 6, 2008 12:35 PM
>> To: opensource-infrastructure
>> Subject: Re: [os-infrastructure] State of the onion
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>> 4. Perhaps most important, from now until the end of time, 95% or
>> more of the code changes made to our product base will
originate
>> from engineers within these walls. You can even put the code
in
>> subversion, make it publicly available, make everybody in the
>> world a committer and still, 95% of the contributions will come
>> from within. Personally, I would be surprised if it were ever
>> more than 1 in 250 but 1 in 20 serves the purpose of this
>> exercise.
>>
>> So why, pray tell, are we trying to wrap ourselves around a tree at
an
>>
>
>
>> unknown cost and unknown level of disruption to the business to
>> satisfy 5% of the engineers working on the code? That simply doesn't
>> make any sense To hear some talk about it, the answer is "by gosh,
we
>>
>
>
>> have got to be an open source company and we have got to use
>> subversion because we need to use the most commonly accepted open
>>
> source code management
>
>> tool or we will be the laughing stock of the world." Not to be
>>
> unkind,
>
>> but this is all just plain BUNK. Lets take a look at some /_*big*_/
>> open source projects -- projects that Ingres compares to (mission
>> critical, huge code base, enterprise class solution) that /noone in
>> their right mind/ would accuse of not being "true open source":
>>
>> *Mozilla*
>>
>> Publicly accessible /read/only/ repository via CVS. Internally, they
>> decided in late 2007 to use Mercurial. Encourages download of source
>> code via tarball. From the Mozilla web site, here is the Mozilla
>> process for externally submitting a bug (read this entire thing):
>>
>> "CVS is used to manage the documents on our web site. To submit
>> changes to a current document you can either use CVS to check out
>> the document
>>
> <http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/cvs#access>
>
>> and create a patch with cvs diff -u or you can click the "Edit
>>
> this
>
>> page" link at the bottom of the document you are changing to make
>>
> a
>
>> patch with Doctor.
>>
>> Once you have a patch, submit the file to the owner of the
>>
> document
>
>> by attaching it to a Bugzilla bug report and asking the owner to
>> review (and check in the changes, too, if you don't have access).
>>
> If
>
>> the document doesn't list its owner, click on the "Document
>>
> History"
>
>> link at the bottom of the page to see who has recently updated
the
>> page and ask them. If all else fails, mail webmaster at mozilla.org
>> <mailto:webmaster at mozilla.org>.
>>
>> As with the source code, if you establish a track record of good
>> work then you may be granted access to the repository, especially
>>
> if
>
>> you contribute documents and become their official owner and
>> maintainer. To get access, you'll need to submit a CVS
Contributor
>> Form <http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/form.html>. Read mozilla.org
>> Content and CVS <http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/cvs>
>>
> for
>
>> CVS information specific to our doc tree. The document Source
Code
>> Via CVS <http://www.mozilla.org/cvs.html> explains where to get a
>> CVS client for your platform and has pointers to CVS
>>
> documentation."
>
>> *OpenOffice.org*
>>
>> Publicly accessible /read/only/ repository via CVS. Source available
>> by tarball. Submission process from the web site:
>>
>> "How to submit code to OpenOffice.org
>>
>> We ask that all code submitted to OpenOffice.org be submitted via
>> Issue Tracker
>> <http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html>. In
>> your submission please list "Issue Type" as PATCH. Your code will
>>
> be
>
>> sent to the committer for the appropriate project."
>>
>> *MySQL*
>>
>> Primary downloads are tarball snapshots. There is a read/only
>> subversion repository. Community contributions? Not really. From
>> the web site (note the word "envision" in the first sentence):
>>
>> "This is how we envision the contribution process can flow:
>>
>> 1. Contributor suggests to work on new or existing WL, or Bug,
>> not in the list below.
>> 1. This happens by emailing community-contributions <at>
>> mysql <dot> com.
>> 2. We review and accept co-operation and include this
>> suggestion in the list below
>> 2. . Contributor suggests to work on a WL or Bug in the list
>> below.
>> 1. This happens by emailing community-contributions <at>
>> mysql <dot> com.
>> 3. We sign up the Contributor, and assign the WL or Bug to
>> him/her.
>> 4. We assign a MySQL mentor to the Contributor
>> 5. The MySQL mentor will advice the Contributor on the work
>> process, and provide design and implementation guidance.
>> 1. For WL's and more significant Bugs we might request
to
>> understand your solution approach (or even design) before you
>>
> should
>
>> start implementation, to ensure you don't spend time on something
>> that needs significant rewrites later
>> 6. The Contributor provides patch for code-review, and MySQL
>> Mentor ensures timely feedback. This step might be repeated some
>> times as required.
>> 1. Contributions should be provided under the
Contributor
>> License Agreement (CLA), which the Contributor needs to approve
>>
> of:
>
>> CLA
>> 7. MySQL Mentor (or the Mentor's lead) approves the patch for
>> inclusion in Community Preview.
>> 1. This Community Preview comes as snapshot binaries
from
>> our build and test environment (called: Pushbuild). Main
platforms
>> are supported (Linux, Windows, Solaris, perhaps Mac OS), other
>> platforms needs to be built from source.
>> 2. MySQL is committed to providing regular snapshot
>>
> updates
>
>> to this Community Preview, so that patches provided to us are
made
>> available in a short timeframe.
>> 8. Bugs towards the patch is filed in a normal fashion to
>> bugs.mysql.com (version = Community Preview) and by default bugs
>> will be assigned to Contributor.
>> 9. After the patch has been seen successful in the Community
>> Preview, MySQL will decide on to include it in the appropriate
>>
> MySQL
>
>> Server version. The default assumption is the current available
>> alpha version for WL's and the oldest relevant MySQL server
>>
> version
>
>> (and forward) for Bugfixes.
>>
>> The net-net here is that of these three well established open source
>> projects, all primary source download options are tarballs, two use
>> cvs and one uses subversion (hardly a quorum on subversion), all
>> repositories are read only and all use their bug tracking system to
>> allow external developers to submit code changes.
>>
>> All this angst about public read/writable source repository and
energy
>>
>
>
>> expended to ensure our two copies of the truth are in sync is, in my
>> opinion, downright silly. I am fine if we want to figure out how to
>> make piccolo constantly refresh a publicly accessible read only
>> subversion or cvs code repository. That would put us on par with
>> Mozilla, OpenOffice.org and MySQL. But lets try to solve this public
>> committer thing when our inability to respond to public contributions
>> to the source code is eating our lunch (and stopping us from making
>>
> money).
>
>> Until then, it seems to me that we are as open source as everyone
else
>> -- just not very organized or transparent about it. And THAT, my
>> friends, is the bigger problem we should be trying to solve.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Tondreau
>> Architect
>> *Ingres Corporation*
>> _david.tondreau at ingres.com <mailto:david.tondreau at ingres.com>_
>>
>> *PHONE* +1 703.738.4811
>> *FAX* +1 650.587.5550
>>
>> *_www.ingres.com_* <http://www.ingres.com/>
>>
>> This transmission is confidential and intended solely for the use of
>> the recipient named above. It may contain confidential, proprietary,
>> or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use,
>> disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this transmission in error, please contact the sender by
>> reply e-mail and delete the original transmission and all copies from
>>
> your system.
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> opensource-infrastructure mailing list
>> opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
>> http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
>> _______________________________________________
>> opensource-infrastructure mailing list
>> opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
>> http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> opensource-infrastructure mailing list
> opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
> http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
_______________________________________________
opensource-infrastructure mailing list
opensource-infrastructure at lists.ingres.com
http://lists.ingres.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource-infrastructure
More information about the opensource-infrastructure
mailing list