On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Dne Čt 24. ledna 2013 13:25:08, drago01 napsal(a):
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Dne Čt 24. ledna 2013 12:24:33, drago01 napsal(a):
> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >> > I quote from the feature page:
> >> >
> >> > "Recent changes made by Oracle indicate they are moving the MySQL
> >> > project to be more closed. They are no longer publishing any useful
> >> > information about security issues (CVEs), and they are not providing
> >> > complete regression tests any more, and a very large fraction of the
> >> > mysql bug database is now not public."
> >> >
> >> > Do you dispute the truth of any of these statements? If you accept
> >> > as truthful, do you consider them insignificant? If so, why?
> >> The reply from Andrew renders this moot.
> > really?
> > how does that reply provide the missing informations that Adam points out?
> I doubt that it is "hard to maintain" for upstream ...
but "hard to maintain" is not what Adam said, right?
Oh missed the reference to Adam's mail ... yeah indeed that one did
not get addressed.
> that would be just odd.
not that much - considering how many people have troubles to adhere to Fedora
packaging rules :-)
> I know it just does not make sense to remove something from the
> distribution if there is someone (in this case even upstream) willing
> to maintain it.
there was no one willing to maintain it by the time the feature was proposed
this has changed since
Yeah and that's what I am pointing out.
have you seen anyone insisting on removing MySQL despite the fact
there may be
a new maintainer?
or what urges you to keep talking about the removal in such
Well am I just pointing out that the situation have or seems to be
changing since the feature has been proposed.
That's it. There is no conspiracy or any other motives behind my
mails. Oh and I don't work for Oracle ;)