Re: www.pgaccess.org - the official story (the way I saw it)

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 10:24:00PM +0200, Iavor Raytchev wrote:

<nice summary of how we got here>

> PROPOSAL
>
> What pgaccess needs is some fresh air - it needs a small and fresh team. It
> needs own web site, own cvs, own mailing list. So that the people who love
> it, write for it and really need it can be easy to identify and to talk to.
> This will not break its relationship to PostgreSQL in any way (see 3] above)

I'd suggest keeping a copy of pgaccess in the main tree, as well, and
pushing versions from the development CVS over on a regular basis. There
are basically two types of development that will need to happen: adapting
pgaccess to changes in PostgreSQL, and developing new features, on top
of the stable release of PostgreSQL. I suggest having two branches at
cvs.pgaccess.org: one that tracks HEAD of pgsql, one that uses the latest
stable release. As features stablize on the second branch, we push them
over to the pgsql branch, then into the pgsql tree, itself. Note that
we might be able to write some pgaccess regression tests: at minimum,
some sanity tests on the schema we store in the database. At postgresql
release time, we'd make sure to get the latest, freshest code into the
main tree, and distributions.

> At the end - I am not experienced how decisions are taken in an open source
> community - I have no idea what is next.

Like this! Out in the open, on the mailing lists. This message of yours was
exactly the right thing to post: you contacted the original maintainer, got
the 'mantle' passed over to the new group, and continue on.

It might be good to get a mailing list at the main site, rather than
running our own: that way, people will find it, and Bruce or someone
has an easy place to push patches he receives for our approval.

> May be one can write a summary what are the bad sides of the above proposal.
> And if there are no such really - we should just proceed and have this nice
> tool alive and running.

Only bad thing would be to let the code in the main postgresql tree rot:
either we keep it fresh, or we ask to have it pulled.

Ross