The search for MySQL 5.5

So, MySQL 6.0 was ditched, and a few weeks ago 5.4 was also – its features to be added in other (earlier) versions (I’m told 5.2 but not sure). I reckon that’s good news, regardless of the version number. There was also an announcement about a change in the release mechanism at Sun/MySQL.

Now for practicals. If I look on Launchpad, the 5.1 branch is the only active one (next to 5.0 fixes, of course). 5.4 was last updated 15 weeks ago. There is no 5.2 on there that I can find. Wasn’t looking for it really, just happened to notice its absence while I was trying to find 5.5. And the reason for that was that Miguel closed a bug I was following, noting it was no longer reproducible in 5.5. He pastes some code that reports mysql as 5.5, so it’s not a typo.

So, in addition to the above list of abandonment (5.4, 6.0), we have 5.2 which I’m told should exist but doesn’t at Launchpad, and 5.5 which appears to exist and is news to me yet doesn’t appear to be out there either. Are you confused? I am.

The particular bug was found during a training session and occurs on Windows. Now the bug is closed, but we can’t see code and have no indication when it or binaries will be available. So what do I tell a user asking about the bug and its apparent fix? (I have to say apparent because Miguel’s response indicate that it’s merely not reproducible on the later version, there’s no specific fix)

Updates

  • Vladislav Vainroub notes there’s a mysql-next-mr branch on launchpad which is in fact version 5.5 inside. It appears to be mirrored, last sync 5 minutes ago but last changeset 39 hours ago. So this seems like a publishing branch, not a development branch (otherwise we’d see more activity).
  • Paul DuBois tells that the mysql-server trunk on launchpad is now 5.5. Last activity is from a week ago, so I presume that like the abovementioned mysql-next-mr branch it’s synced and not actually from a live development branch. Pity.

8 thoughts on “The search for MySQL 5.5”

  1. For christ’s sake, can’t you look at the branch list and deduce which trees are used for development? It’s right there, you just have to look! No development is done on main branches, either on launchpad or anywhere else.

    1. @anonymous thanks for your scream, I do share your frustration albeit differently directed.
      Let’s see. https://code.launchpad.net/mysql-server

      Since I was told there was a 5.5, it’s not unreasonable to look for a branch that has “Series: 5.5″ noted. There isn’t.
      One of the comments I received was a ref to a completely different branch name on LP, but it’s not particularly descriptive is it? Am I supposed to guess that this is in fact a) 5.5 and b) the focus of development?
      Furthermore, yes I see various somewhat active branches on launchpad, but from many it’s impossible to see what version they belong to. Many of them actually refer to 6.0, which the world was told was abandoned.
      Commonly, branches are named after their parent branch, + a tag indicating who/what. For lack of any branch named 5.5, that approach does not work here.

      From the responses so far, the “don’t you know!?” comments come from dear former colleagues at Sun/MySQL, whereas everybody else is just as confused as I am. This might indicate that there’s some relevance to the issue.

  2. > Since I was told there was a 5.5, it’s not unreasonable to look for a
    > branch that has “Series: 5.5″ noted. There isn’t.

    Hand waving.

    > One of the comments I received was a ref to a completely different
    > branch name on LP, but it’s not particularly descriptive is it?

    Only if you didn’t pay attention to the development cycle announcement.

    > Am I supposed to guess that this is in fact a) 5.5 and b) the focus
    > of development?

    No, but speculating is easy, isn’t it? You could have read the development cycle wiki, asked on one of the various mailing lists, etc.

    > Furthermore, yes I see various somewhat active branches on
    > launchpad, but from many it’s impossible to see what version
    > they belong to.

    I can see their versions with a few clicks…

    > Many of them actually refer to 6.0, which the world was told
    > was abandoned.

    You need to check your sources…

    > Commonly, branches are named after their parent branch, + a tag
    > indicating who/what. For lack of any branch named 5.5, that approach
    > does not work here.

    There is a reason branches are named how they are. Read up the development cycle wiki.

    > From the responses so far, the “don’t you know!?” comments come
    > from dear former colleagues at Sun/MySQL, whereas everybody else
    > is just as confused as I am.

    Yes, everybody else…

  3. Thank you, anonymous.

    My “everybody else” is based on emails and blog comments, and questions we get at user groups and conference. None of these people has the feeling that they have an overview of what’s going on with either versions or active development at Sun/MySQL.

    Now, you may declare them all to be blind and say “just look up page X” and “check your sources”, but that’s not really helpful is it.When users say these things, it generally means that the info out there is somehow not clear.

    Having to check versioning inside a repo tree is silly, the branch naming should indicate it. Unless you’re familiar with the sourcecode, it’s actually not that easy to find. So yes I can find it, but on behalf of all those who can’t and actually don’t care to, it shouldn’t be necessary.

    You’re the first “source” this week to effectively imply that 6.0 is not abandoned. However, you’re not actually a source as such since you’re anonymous, plus it lacks specifics. You’re just being crankypants.

    Re release method change announcements, they’re meaningless. Noone cares for announcements since so many things were announced before that then never happened. Development-in-public, and actual releases, are what people look for. MySQL used to do this, I’m sure it can again.

  4. @anonymous

    The versioning potpourri of the last year is pathological. Let’s start there. There’s no reason for the same da*n release to have 3 different major version identifiers in the same 12 month period.

    @arjen I agree with your comments and share the confusion of the others who’ve emailed you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>