+ there should be documentation of reasonable standard available for such engine. On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 15:01, Michael Widenius <monty@askmonty.org> wrote:
Hi!
"Arjen" == Arjen Lentz <arjen@openquery.com> writes:
Arjen> Hi all, fellow Maria captains in particular (but naturally anybody Arjen> here can comment)
Arjen> We'd like to include the plugin for OQGRAPH engine in the 5.1 packages Arjen> we're just about to build. Arjen> It would not be pulled in like the xtradb/pbxt engines, but be Arjen> compiled separately and not loaded in by default (people will have to Arjen> do INSTALL PLUGIN) so that as long as it's not loaded, it can have no Arjen> influence on the running of mysqld.
Arjen> The rationale is this. Arjen> From the experience with PBXT, people really want/need binaries/ Arjen> packages before they will try things. If 5.1 binaries had had PBXT Arjen> plugin sitting there, lots more people would have tried it earlier, Arjen> filed bugreports and feedback, and Paul would have been where he is Arjen> now much quicker. With MariaDB pulling it in it's ok now, but it's Arjen> just a darn waste and pity of the earlier time.
Arjen> Since 5.1's plugin infrastructure still requires a plugin to be Arjen> compiled against close to exact the original mysqld source, the only Arjen> way to ensure that is to compile them from the same source at the same Arjen> time, next to eachother. Arjen> So that's what I'm proposing.
Arjen> Nonsense like the feature preview builds that Sun/MySQL did just make Arjen> no sense in the real world, people can't use that. So while sticking Arjen> new plugins in a future version like 5.2 appears sensible, it doesn't Arjen> actually help in getting the code out there and used which is of Arjen> course the only way to get feedback and bugreports. The ability to Arjen> have plugins distributed but not loaded is the key here, it allows us Arjen> to get stuff out and those who want to try it can, without Arjen> destabilising anything for those who don't.
From my point of view, I think it's ok that we add 'alpha' storage engines, that are not loaded by default, to the MariaDB tree.
In my view, an engine that is just distributed with MariaDB will not downgrade the overall quality of MariaDB itself.
I would however like to suggest that when we impose the following restrictions to any engine code that are to be distributed with MariaDB:
- The engine should be 'useful for a large number of people'. - The engine will not cause any delays (except build & test run times) when doing MariaDB releases. - The code needs to compile without any warnings or errors. - The code should work on all platforms. - Any hard bugs (server crashes or security issues) should be solved ASAP (preferably within 1 week) - Any reasonable-to-fix bugs should be solved promptly (within 2 weeks or before next MariaDB release) - There should be reasonable tests for the engine to ensure that it works.
If OQGRAPH satisfies the above requirements (or Arjen promises that all issues will be taken care of), I am ok to add it to MariaDB 5.1
Comments?
Regards, Monty
PS: Yes, I know that this means we should try to get sphinx into MariaDB 5.1 too ASAP.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp