| From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
| Date: | 2004-04-22 06:40:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20040422064047.GE2953@zf.jcu.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 12:41:28AM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> The problem with moving all contribs to gborg is that sometimes it's
> required to change many modules, for example, because of changing
> GiST interface. Tom saves a lot of working for contrib authors, when he
> change code in core. I'm not sure, gborg would provide easy access for
> such kind of things. tsearch2, particularly, is maintained in pgsql CVS.
Agree. The basic argue for removing something from contrib should be
that nobody maintain a module or that maintain it in the contrib is
difficult.
Other problem -- now maintainers of distribution PostgreSQL packages
(Debian/RH/...) make packages from the contrib tree. Are you sure they
will search something on sourceforge/gborg and make separate packeges
for each small script? How they will detect what is good for packaging?
The contrib tree is basic selection of interesting small thigs from
PostgreSQL world.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2004-04-22 07:53:45 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-04-22 04:56:15 | Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions |