Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2007-10-10 kell 11:06, kirjutas Joshua D. Drake:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:01:34 +0100
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > >> > I also agree with this. We have to pretend it isn't in /contrib
> > >> > now, figure out where want it, then put it there (contrib,
> > >> > pgfoundry, core).
>
> > I just don't see the point in putting it in pgfoundry. It's already in
> > pgfoundry as part of Skytools.
> > The whole point of having such a
> > datatype is to build common interface to abstract away the internals
> > of the database. That makes the pgfoundry modules (Skytools and
> > Slony) easier to maintain separately.
>
> I missed the part that it is part of Skytools already but as counter
> point, what makes sense at that point is for Skytools to remove it and
> make it it's own module.

Is'nt this just what happened when it was moved to contrib ?

> That way Slony (which is not a pgfoundry
> project) or anyone else that wants to make use of it can.
>
> >
> > Putting it in core or contrib means that when we change the snapshot
> > mechanics in 8.4 the same developer will be able to fix the module at
> > the same time (and find out if his changes break it at the same
> > time).
>
> Which is very cool, for *8.4* :)
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>