[os-infrastructure] Re: [os-engineering] Closed source components

[Joe Abbate]

Hi Daryl,

Daryl Monge wrote:
> So, if I understand the actual, fundamental strategic problem for the 
> DBMS code line it boils down to:
>
> 1)  There is one head-rev for both the community edition and the 
> internal enterprise edition and they are kept in lock-step as much as 
> is practical (minutes? hours? days?)
>
> 2)  There are two head-revs.  Community and Enterprise.  There is a 
> constant manual activity to cross-integrate changes between them.
>
> A variation is a slight hybrid to (2) is where the Enterprise head-rev 
> is kept in lock-step with community but the community head-rev has to 
> be manually cross-integrated into the Enterprise head-rev.
>
> All the other discussion seems to be completely around the details of 
> handling branches/labels/releases, cross-integrations, etc. and from 
> my view can be handled with either scenario.
>
> I think (2) and its variation is too much work and fraught with 
> logistical and quality control dangers.  The fallacy I perceive in the 
> discussion is the notion that changes are coming into community 
> head-rev that we do not want.  This strikes me as a process problem 
> rather than a strategy problem.

One example of community changes that Steve has mentioned is "Project 
D".  I wasn't in DR, but I presume it means something related to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28data_language_specification%29

This is not SQL and though it may be "the way of the future", it may 
take years before we're ready to introduce it as part of the mainstream 
Ingres product.

Joe