Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

Rod Taylor wrote:

>> I think most of the current contrib projects are more missing the
>> advantage version independence would have for the ease of "sitting" in
>> contrib and having the whole project management around them just done.
>> Yes, doing your own gborg project costs time. You have to maintain
>> pages, do your own release cycles with announcement, BETA phase,
>> tarballs, packaging and all the nine yards. Being in contrib avoids all
>> that in a very convenient way.
>
> I think Gnome (and KDE) have the right idea. Several independent small
> projects that once or twice a year get together and have a big release.
>
> We could co-ordinate a set of projects (phppgadmin, pgadmin, slony,
> jdbc, odbc, etc. etc.) to make a release on the same day as PostgreSQL.

Maybe not this way, but I like the general idea of "grouping" multiple
smaller projects for release and overall project maintenance purposes.

CVS has the capability to combine multiple, separate modules into
symbolic names. With that, one can create exactly those "meta" checkouts
for nightly build systems, which could simply alarm a mailing list of
module admins if something goes wrong. Setting up a nightly build agains
CVS tip is nothing one would even think of for a simple loadable
extension, but if you just have to add the thing to a group and done,
Joe Conways concern is mostly answered.

Josh, is there anything that remotely sounds like this in the new system
you're setting up?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #