|Subject||Re: [IBDI]Comments on IBDI article I just posted...|
> Perhaps IBDI should concentrate on ways to synchronize the code bases andCertainly not. The root of the floating problem today is that people would like to keep two code bases, distinct, but 'nearly' synchronized. Join or split. There's no future in-between. IMHO.
> the groups' work. A code replicator?
Olivier Mascia, om@..., Senior Software Engineer
T.I.P. Group S.A., www.tipgroup.com, Director
----- Original Message -----
From: "Veli-Matti Hurskainen" <vmh@...>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [IBDI]Comments on IBDI article I just posted...
> It would be ideal, of course, if there were one source code base. But there
> isn't. We know the history of why this is the fact. Forcing - more or less
> - the two code bases together and the two groups to work as one would force
> compromises between the people and their way of developing IB/Firebird. And
> a compromise is against "let all the flowers grow" - the open source
> philosophy. Uniting the two would also profile IB/Firebird again as a
> backend of Borland tools, Delphi,CB,JB etc. Though they are great tools,
> there's a wide variety of others - and their users. Look at the Java world.
> I would very much like to see Interserver/-client support "natively" e.g.
> Visual Cafe etc.
> Perhaps IBDI should concentrate on ways to synchronize the code bases and
> the groups' work. A code replicator? If the two groups survive - or new
> groups will be born it only means there are substantially different ways to
> do the job. What is really needed, is a core (version) holder to ensure
> there will no more be locksmiths in the engine. At the moment that can only
> be IBPhoenix and the individuals they choose.