Re: Thoughts on MySQL and InnoDB

> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 12/1/2005 12:13 PM, Andreas Pflug wrote:
>>> Jan Wieck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I am not shocked about that any more, but more shocked that
>>>> MySQL AB feels free to make significant changes in features from
>>>> one patchlevel to another.
>>>
>>> Well, reading the changelog history apparently they call 5.0.15
>>> from Oct.19th "Release", so all previous versions were Beta. I
>>> wonder how many MySQL 5.0 users are aware of that...
>> Er ... hmmmm ... so that means they have happy feature mucking
>> during BETA? This is unprofessional. BETA phase without feature
>> freeze ... what kind of hobby coders did they hire?
>
> I'd guess that it's less a feature of their technical team and more of
> the licencing model. The pressure to announce a new version tends to
> drive most companies. Even MS used to, although they seem to be doing
> the "semi-public beta status for two years" thing recently.

This particular sloppiness isn't something I'd attribute to that.

If I were to add Major New Functionality, I'd be keen on generating a
new major version.

The difference between 5.0.14 and 5.0.15 looks like it would warrant
at least a bump to 5.1.something, if not to 6.something.  You sort of
expect that minor releases have pretty much equivalent functionality.

Massive change should encourage publicizing it as more than just a
third level version number change, particularly if the
licensing/royalty model encouraged that...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/lisp.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #75.  "I will instruct my Legions of Terror
to attack the hero en  masse, instead of standing around waiting while
members break off and attack one or two at a time."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>