db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: Grant and Revoke ... DERBY-464...
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:48:31 GMT
Dag H. Wanvik wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>>>>>>"Daniel" == Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com> wrote:
> Daniel> > 8. Updatable, scrollable result sets
> Daniel> > 
> Daniel> > We (Fernanda, Andreas and I) are making progress on making the
> Daniel> > scrollable (insensitive) result sets updatable, stay tuned.
> Daniel> 
> Daniel> That's great.
> Daniel> 
> Daniel> Being curious, may I ask why this is not being developed on the list?
> Daniel> 
> Daniel> Open source means the development, design etc. are hashed out on the
> Daniel> list, not in private e-mails/meetings.
> :) I fully agree with you. Being new to Derby we have spent some time
> trying to understand the code base, doing experiments etc in order
> build sufficient understanding of the problem, to avoid spamming you
> all with too many silly newbie questions. 

Those "silly newbie questions" are actually good for the list and for
building the community. By only asking them within yourselves, only
three people have learnt the internals of Derby. Instead if you had
asked them on the list then many more people would have had the chance
to learn about Derby. In addition the questions and *answers* are there
in the archives, and searchable by Google.

I don't see any technical discussions/questions/answers as noise on the
list, the dev list is for precisely for that purpose. If we get repeated
questions about something, then it's a good indication we are not doing
a good job of informing people, either through writing good code
comments, design docs, user docs, etc. etc. It's useful (indirect)
feedback on the quality on the Derby project as a whole.


I am now in the process of
> making a proposal which will be posted on the list shortly. I very
> much hope for active participation from all interested parties, so we
> can head in the right direction from the start with the
> implementation.
> Dag
> PS! We discussed the balance of openness/noise ratio on the dev list
> even earlier today given the amount of traffic, in order to strike the
> right balance and I made the same point you are making here; I guess
> we are all still learning the open source way ;-)

View raw message