Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement

Josh Berkus wrote:

>Dave, all:
>
>
>
>>This issue has come up before, and I opposed it then when the interfaces
>>were removed from the main tarball.
>>I really don't see the upside to reducing the size of the tarball at the
>>expense of ease of use. Seems to me we are
>>bending over backwards to make it easy for people with dial up
>>connections to download our "enterprise class"
>>database.
>>
>>
>
>Small tarball size isn't the *primary* reason for having our
>"push-it-out-to-pgFoundry" attitude, it's the *tertiary* reason. The main
>two reasons are:
>
>1) If we start including everything that's "useful", where do we stop? There
>are enough pg add-ins to fill a CD -- 200 projects on GBorg and pgFoundry and
>others elsewhere. And some of them probably conflict with each other. Any
>decision to include some projects and not others will alienate people and
>possibly be a mis-evaluation; the libpq++/libpqxx mistake comes to mind.
>
>
My main concern was pushing out existing code, not adding code that was
not in the tarball.
I would have to agree deciding which to include would be onerous.

>2) As long as we're using CVS, the only way to organize autonomous project
>teams that have authority over their special areas but no ability to change
>central code is to "push out" projects to separate CVS trees.
>
>
This has never been an issue before, AFAIK, nobody with commit privliges
in a separate
package has ever changed the code where they weren't supposed to.

To sum this up; the arguments presented are:

1) The tarball is/was too big however nobody ever complained.
2) CVS does not allow different groups to have commit privliges, but
nobody has ever violated the trust

Is this really the situation ?

>>From my perspective, putting together a coherent "distribution" of PostgreSQL
>with all the add-ins you want is the job of commercial distributors and
>possibly OSS projects like Bizgres.
>
>

--
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561