On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
The fear is that this may distort other priorities - hence why
increased transparency in decision making is important. If Bruce, Tom
Jan make a design decision, then chances are it's going to be pretty
good. The problem is it will/may be seen as a
"Ross J. Reedstrom" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I am really saying that core doesn't do much. You non-core folks
aren't missing anything.
Yeah, that's what you say in public ... There is no cabal!
It's true that very little goes on on the private core mailing list,
and we try to keep it
At 22:12 13/10/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The majority of core discussions are closed because either we need to
decide on a central direction for the project (release date)
These are the things that you should consider making more transparent.
or we need
to discuss
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
The fear is that this may distort other priorities - hence why
increased transparency in decision making is important. If Bruce, Tom
Jan make a design decision, then chances are it's going to be pretty
good. The problem is it will/may be seen
I think ideally our role is one of cat herders, as you put it ---
making the kinds of decisions that a group of dozens or hundreds
can't make effectively. But the long-term direction of the project
is largely determined by what the individual CVS committers choose to
work on. In that
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Adam Lang wrote:
Ah but remember... what is a "better RDBMS" to a company may be
different than one for the open source community.
I'm not sure I see that...
The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
implementing a feature and then attempt
"Matthew N. Dodd" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The one place where GB can get burned is if they spend lots of time/money
implementing a feature and then attempt to recoup their investment by
holding said feature back from the PGSQL source tree.
I can say with a good deal of confidence that this
PROTECTED]
To: "Matthew N. Dodd" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Adam Lang" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
I can say with a good deal of confidence that this is not part of GB's
vision of how t
Adam Lang wrote:
(Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free also,
correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on that
is private... but then postgres can be run and compiled without it).
PostgreSQL is not under the GPL. PostgreSQL has (and
October 12, 2000 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
Adam Lang wrote:
(Actually, under GPL, any modifications of the code have to be free
also,
correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
that
is private... but then postgres can be run
Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
- Original Message -
From: "Lamar Owen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Adam Lang" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
Adam Lang wrote:
"Adam Lang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
Of course both lincenses can be the basis of propriatery efforts(GPL and
Apache(BSD style licenses).
On 13 Oct 2000, Gunnar R|nning wrote:
"Adam Lang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May bad... sometimes it is too easy assuming everything open source is GPL.
correct?, so it can't really be proprietised unless they make an add-on
Of course both lincenses can be the basis of
Bottom line is we're not sure what to do now. Opinions from the
floor, anyone?
From the lowly end of the floor... for what I am concerned, I'm not
worried about the involvment of the core team. Instead, I'm happy
that companies like GB and Postgres Inc have been founded.
I'm not an
Bruce Momjian writes:
After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
Bridge.
Whatever happened to this:
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ross J. Reedstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: PostgreSQL-general [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001010 09:47] wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
Bridge.
Whatever happened to this:
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 15:19:48 -0400
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ross J. Reedstrom
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian writes:
After careful consideration, I have decided to accept a job with Great
Bridge.
Whatever happened to this:
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: One thing we have agreed to is that there must not be an unseemly fraction
I think Great Bridge makes a shining example of an exception to
that rule, the impression I got from the developers already there
as well as the managment was very good.
And although I loath to speak for others, you wouldn't think that
Bruce would take this position if it somehow
rlstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Peter Eisentraut" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "PostgreSQL-general"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] My new job
* Peter Eisentraut [EMAI
Dave Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well to calm any fears of Great Bridge taking over what exactly are the
terms of employment? Are the developers merely continuing on with what
they were working on and now getting paid for it, or is Great Bridge
saying here are the projects we want
I just don't see what the conflict might be. It's not
like Great Bridge is going to hold Bruce's family
hostage and force him to rewrite PostgreSQL in Cobol.
In fact, Great Bridge had better treat their employees
very well or they will find that their are greener
pastures somewhere else.
"Adam Lang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't judging. I was mentioning to others what the concerns probably
were. Also, it isn't a concern of "Company B" taking over. It is of the
possibility of development put in the direction that best benefits of
Company B as opposed to the project
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
more in voliation of the original plan.
violation ? Or is this just another gap in my knowledge of the English
language ?
Gunnar
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:06:37PM -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
Adam Lang wrote:
Well to calm any fears of Great Bridge taking over what exactly are the
terms of employment? Are the developers merely continuing on with what
they were working on and now getting paid for it, or is Great Bridge
Adam Haberlach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All this whinging about "corperate direction" is really meaningless
unless you are prepared to jump ship or split off in a clone of the
original one. The code is what you do with it. We are all lucky that
it is as good and useful as it is
At 17:25 10/10/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So the question is, what do we do now?
There seem to be several concerns (in no particular order):
1. Conscious design/development choices based partly/solely on the needs of
one or more companies as opposed to the interest of the open source project.
Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bridge wants to turn PostgreSQL into a pinball machine
emulator.
All right, who leaked the Great Bridge product plans. :-)
"He's a PostgreSQL wizard, there's got to be a twist..."
rotfl ... where's the CC warning on this?
Gunnar R|nning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
more in voliation of the original plan.
violation ? Or is this just another gap in my knowledge of the English
language ?
You're right, he's wrong. We native English speakers are notoriously
poor
28 matches
Mail list logo
