Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

>> On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 23:05, Robert Treat wrote:
> The difference is that a "better" admin tool is very subjective where as
> a buffer strategy is not... or maybe the difference is really that
> everyone thinks they are qualified to pick a "better" admin tool, but
> very few can really argue as to a better buffer strategy. While I think
> your criteria is pretty close to what I would use, I still couldn't pick
> which is the best between pgtcl/pgtclng/pgintcl or pypgsql/pygresql...
> and even I did I bet some people would have a problem with my choices.

I think the issue is that is gborg/pgfoundy should not just be a
sourceforge like tool for postgresql related applications. If they are
then someone looking for a gui admin tool for exmaple has to try them all
out only to find that 75% of them are half started projects that haven't
been maintained in two years, at least that is my typical experience with
sourceforge, and I know that is an issue with gborg right now.

Perhaps we could have some type of system whereby we can rank apps that as
tier1 supported or some such thing. The end user can still make his
subjective choice as to which is best, since nothing prevents us from
having 4 different tier1 supported gui admin apps, but the enduser would
be able to weed out most of the apps that aren't even close.