Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

"Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>> From a project-management point of view, it's insanity to set a presumption
>>> that pgfoundry is just a proving ground for code that should eventually get
>>> into core once it's mature enough or popular enough or whatever. We *have
>>> to* encourage the development of a cloud of subprojects around the core, or
>>> core will eventually collapse of its own weight.
>>
>> One option might be the Perl approach of having separately developed projects
>> which are snapshotted at stable points and included in the release. It has the
>> chance to offer the best of both worlds by offloading development outside of
>> core but provide users with a perceived "complete" system.
>
> Yeah, but then what happens when the offloaded development/maintenance
> doesn't happen? We'd end up pulling the package or having to maintain
> it ourselves anyway.

Yeah, it's probably a plan which would work better once there's some solidly
maintained external projects for an extended period of time.

I suppose it's not entirely unlike the history of tsearch.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!