Stefan Teleman wrote: > Lukas Rovensky wrote: > >> Sriram, >> >> unless there is a business reason to keep MySQL 4.x then I would >> personally think that we should remove it from Nevada. >> > > +1 > >
Just because this is Nevada and not Solaris, doesn't mean that we should dilute end user choice. Whether MySQL 4.x should stay, or not, should, imo, be dictated by (0) Compatibility: We *want* to preserve compatibility. Why do we go through detailed processes, where the watch words are *interfaces* and *compatibility* for each F/OSS application that we integrate into OpenSolaris, if we're willing to pull the plug so easily on an older rev? We do tons of research on what versions are expected to be incompatible with each other, and how we're going to manage to maintain compatibility on the face of incompatible changes - lets put that to work. While OpenSolaris does not guarantee compatibility, we don't want to throw it away unless we really need to - this is our strength. (1) how important do the OpenSolaris community MySQL users think it is, for MySQL 4.x to be around? (ie., this should *not* be dictated by Sun's business reasons). (2) Like Brandorr suggested, if MySQL AB still supports this, it means that people are still using it. Don't pull the plug. > > As for Solaris 10 -- yes we should keep it there -- I just tried to > > answer Stefan's question. > The community doesn't have a say in piece - Solaris 10 should be dictated by Sun's business interests. If we're discussing this in the open, we should make that clear. Else we risk alienating non-Sun OpenSolaris community members who would have an opinion on the topic. My 0.02$, -ps
