Re: First Draft of 8.2 Release

Chris Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With the continued success of our community project site
>>> www.pgfoundry.org we also have the following projects developing
>>> additional add-on features to offer expanded functionality to what is
>>> included in the main PostgreSQL release. These features may be too
>>> cutting edge to be considered part of the main project or may just
>>> cater to a small market.
>
> Right. Perhaps more like...
>
> "These projects include some that require different release cycles
> than that of the main database engine, as well as projects catering to
> specific smaller markets."

I think each of these statements
* undersell the extensible architecture of postgresql that
enables these projects
* don't communicate the wide range of capabilities
offered by pgfoundry projects
* could have been clearer in saying that pgfoundry's the
officially preferred place for extensions (which is still
confusing with some internet links still pointing to gborg)

How about:

"PostgreSQL's extensible architecture has lead to a large community
of extensions ranging from additional procedural languages,
interfaces to external systems, new index types, and replication
and high availability tools that are hosted on the official
PostgreSQL community project site www.pgfoundry.org. Community
projects that have made significant advances in the 8.2 release
cycle include [pgpool|pljava|full_disjunction - whatever the list was]."

I think the tone of this sentence suggests that pgfoundry is separate
from core because there is such a large/wide range of extensions -
rather than that they're unstable "too cutting edge" or of little
interest "catering to specific markets". While each are true,
I think the large scope of extensions is a bigger reason, as well
as sounding more like a positive than a negative.

Ron