Sorry, I got a bit behind on the mailing list. This reply is rather
late.

> From: "Mike Nordell" <tamlin@...>
> Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:01:27 +0100
>
> Chris Jewell wrote:
>
> > For the information of all readers, the CVS tree available at
> >
> CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@...:/cvsroot/Interbase
> > contains a fix for that bug, in file dsql/pass1.c. (... also for a
> > few other bugs that we IB engineers in Scotts Valley fixed after the
> > 6.0 open-source code freeze in June.)
>
> [...]
>
> This is *not* intended as a flame-bait, but to try to get some info as how
> to we could get this to proceed as smoothly as possible.
>
> If I'm way out of line here, like you not being a part of Inprise, but a
> part of NewCo, please disregard what seems to not fit in the following text.

I'm drawing an Inprise paycheck. I've been expecting for 6 months or
so to move to NewCo by mutual agreement among both of the companies
and me as soon as the deal was signed. ...-.- (That's end of message
in Morse code.)

> This information implies that Inprise did not release the "current"
> (up-to-date) source to the community. Could you, or anyone else, please
> either verify or deny this?

We took a source-code snapshot matching the binaries which we
certified for the 6.0 release (the certification process takes a week
or two including time to analyze the test results), and burned CDs
containing both source and binaries in time for Borcon. We hoped that
the CDs could be included in the bags of goodies handed out to all the
attendees at Borcon. That obviously didn't happen. :-(

Thereafter, various of us spent varying amounts of time repeatedly
changing the license wording in all the source files as the lawyers
kept changing their minds (and then wrapping new source tar and
zip files), and continuing to work on fixing bugs as they came to our
attention.

The general opinion at the time (everyone's opinion as far as I know,
including Ann's) was that we should release source and binaries which
match. If we hadn't spent so much of our time cleaning up after the
lawyers, perhaps we might have been ready with a CVS tree with both
the 6.0 release and later changes visible in it, but that too didn't
happen. :-(

> Committing have already begun at the firebird project, and it also seems
> like the firebird project is the IBDI endorsed one. Opinions have been
> voiced that Inprise wouldn't be trusted (whatever the reasons, no flames
> please) to the extent needed to use their setup at Source Forge.
>
> Since we now apparently *have* two branches with different bugfixes for
> different parts, would you be willing to accept whatever place the majority
> deem appropriate as the (even if intermediate) "home" for IB as the
> "official" CVS?

The day that Ann announced her departure and we in Scotts Valley
started taking our marching orders from Ted Shelton, I fixed a bug,
and asked Ted for permission to check my bug-fix into a publicly-
available CVS server, should there happen to be one out there: his
answer that Friday was ``wait until Monday for a decision'', and the
later answer was ``no, we should set up our own CVS tree on Source
Forge''.

> If it turns out that Firebird would be the (possibly intermediate) home for
> the code, would you be intersted to merge your fixes into that tree?

Would *I* be interested? Sure, why not? Would *Inprise* be
interested and/or would they let me do it while I'm on their payroll?
Someone else would have to answer that question.

The code is now open source: there is nothing to stop anyone from
taking a change which any Inprise employee commits to the "interbase"
tree and committing the same change it the "firebirdashes" tree. That
probably shouldn't be too tough until the community starts really
delving into the guts of the jrd and dsql components. Perhaps by then
everything will have been sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. (I
certainly hope so.)

As an example, there is plenty of migration of code back and forth
among the netbsd, openbsd, and freebsd trees: some people are
committers on more than one project, others may commit on one project
and keep an eye on the commit messages of another for improvements
they can use. That's not the ideal situation, I'm sure, but useful
work still gets done that way, and so does code-sharing. I run both
Open- and FreeBSD at home, and can assure you that not all the
commonality of code is due to their shared ancestry in BSD 4.4-lite.

> I'm sorry for posting this in the Architects group, but since this probly
> also affects you...
>
> Disclaimer: This is my personal comment, and does in no way connect to the
> Firebird and Firebird Ashes official standpoints, if we at the moment even
> have any. :-)

Likewise, my comments are NOT a statement of Inprise position about
anything, and have not be authorized or reviewed by anyone qualified
to speak for the company. Even more than usual: I SPEAK ONLY FOR ME.
Not only don't I speak for Inprise, I don't even speak for the Inprise
employees still involved with InterBase: they all have their own
opinions, and can state them or not as they see fit.

And speaking only for me, I wish absolutely everyone who reads this
list well, and hope that the best possible results eventuate for the
people who use InterBase, on whose behalf ALL of us are working,
whether in Inprise, NewCo, IBDI, or whatever.

--
Chris Jewell developer/sysadmin voice: 831-431-6531
cjewell@... InterBase Software, Borland-Inprise fax: 831-431-6510