3 ms·
How is that inflammatory? SQLite not accepting contributions is their own policy. Saying that the industry wants different features... is that inflammatory? Thi
by threatofrain 4y ago
How is that inflammatory? SQLite not accepting contributions is their own policy. Saying that the industry wants different features... is that inflammatory? This new fork wants contributors, so of course this is going to be a distinction of their project.
Linux is used to run the world and there are failures as well as contributors.
- chasil 4y agoThere might be more subtlety than is immediately obvious. It is implied that SQLite is not run properly because it is not responsive to many of its users. User contributors will be sorely disappointed. There is an assertion that SQLite is behind the times. It has a laser focus on reliability, which hold back features desired by some. The article disregards the TH3 testing compliance, and asserts that forks are inevitable, which is not true. TH3 is a moat around SQLite that dissuades such attempts, and ignoring this fact also likely invokes umbrage. There is also a mention of the code of conduct that SQLite has chosen. It does not inspire universal admiration. The article wants the following, and some are unlikely to ever appear upstream: 1. We would like to use io_uring and asynchronous interfaces 2. We would like to provide replication hooks for distributed systems 3. We would like to allow for WASM-based user-defined functions
- matesz 4y ago4. We would like to use eBPF