Re:Open Source is not dead: On the recent demise of RethinkDB
by johan_larson on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:09PM
(#12729791)
> That is very hard to do.
Yes it is.
But once you start making serious changes to the source-code, it's probably less painful than trying to deal with all the merge conflicts from your own fixes every time you upgrade to a new version. At some point it's just easier to push all of that stuff to the common version.
Re:Open Source is not dead: On the recent demise of RethinkDB
by pjmlp on Monday October 17, 2016 @05:30PM
(#12729960)
In all those cases I was aware of, the versions were never upgraded, they were frozen to the one used when the project started.
Re:Open Source is not dead: On the recent demise of RethinkDB
by johan_larson on Monday October 17, 2016 @07:04PM
(#12730633)
I don't know the details, but the teams at Google responsible for supporting their version of Linux and their C++ compiler sometimes mentioned making contributions to the common codebases. I got the impression they didn't make all of their fixes public, though.
Re:Open Source is not dead: On the recent demise of RethinkDB
by pjmlp on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @01:43AM
(#12732386)
Sure, but companies like Google, Facebook and others are the outliers anyway.
What matters are all those companies that no one heard of, or whose business has nothing to do with producing software.
Usually you have to fight for the right to contribute back, which in big companies means lots of fun with upper management layers and legal department before you get the green light to do that little pull request.
So in my career I have seen lots of open source being used at Fortune 500, sometimes with internal forks of bug fixes and zero contributions being done back.