On 05/13/2016 09:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 09:12:23AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
There was no disrespect intended. I was trying to push forth an idea that
multi-company team collaboration is better for the community than single
company team collaboration. I will stand by that assertion.
Uh, we are already doing that. EDB and NTT are working on FDWs and
sharding, PostgresPro and someone else is working on a transaction
manager, and EDB and 2nd Quadrant worked on parallelism.
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
Hey, if I am wrong that's awesome. The impression I have is the general
workflow is this:
* Company(1) discusses feature with community
* Company(1) works on patch/feature for a period of time
* Company(1) delivers patch to community
* Standard operation continues (patch review, discussion, etc..)
This is not "bad" but it isn't as productive as something like this
* Company(1) + Company(2) get together and discuss using their
respective resources to collaboratively develop X (multi-master for
* Company(1) + Company(2) discuss feature with community
* Company(1) + Company(2) work on patch/feature in the open, together
* Company(1) + Company(2) deliver patch to community
* Standard operation continues (patch review, discussion, etc...)
The difference being one of coopetition versions competition for the
betterment of the community. If there are companies that are doing that
already, that is awesome and I applaud it. I was just trying to further
drive that idea home.
This on my end all sourced from this event:
That event is childish and a poor representation of what our community
stands for: Excellent, Correctness, Inclusion, Collaboration.
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: