Re: developer privs in development (old thread inaccessible)

On 8 Dec 2003, sybrandb_at_yahoo.com wrote:

> Your understanding of licensing is incorrect. You are paying
> for either named users or 'UPUs' based on processor
> capacity. In both cases you are definitely in violation of your
> license.

This is the first time I've heard this.

There were even many discussions here where we talked about how, if you are supporting production, you must pay, but if you are developing, you can use it for free.

> As for supplying each developer with his/her own instance: I
> can't imagine why anyone would consider this necessary, and in
> your case you are just hiding away from the real issue. Your
> policy can hardly be called a 'solution' because your
> application will be developed against non-administered
> instances, resulting in all crap procedures followed there
> ending up in the final production instance.

The CVS code base where every single developer is required to rebuild their database from, down to the creation of users and granting roles takes care of this. We now force the DBA to expose his work as well. This seems to be the crux of the issue anyways. DBA's don't want their code to come under scrutiny. If everybody focuses on the source code, then we all have one place to do things from.

-- 
Galen Boyer