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

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-22 13:47:11
Message-ID: 937d27e10807220647k4ce9cca1nccb1eecaac5124b0@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

/D

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Valentin Bogdanov 2008-07-22 14:08:32 Re: shared_buffers and shmmax
Previous Message dx k9 2008-07-22 13:39:57 shared_buffers and shmmax