Re: request link to maintained pgAdmin 3 fork on main project page

Hi

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
wrote:

> Dave Page or whom it concerns,
>
> Reflecting on feedback given to this list on a number of occasions
> including today about how pgAdmin 3 works better for some people than
> pgAdmin 4 does, and that pgAdmin 3 is officially unsupported, I
> recommend/request the following...
>
> On the page https://www.pgadmin.org/download/ where it says "WARNING:
> pgAdmin 3 is no longer supported. It is recommended that you download
> pgAdmin 4 instead.", I recommend editing that to append "by us" or
> something similar, and then add a sentence and link saying that a third
> party (or several if applicable) has taken it on themselves to provide
> long-term support for pgAdmin 3, BigSQL at least.
>
> So for people whom pgAdmin 4 isn't meeting their needs as well as pgAdmin
> 3, make it more easily known that BigSQL or others are explicitly offering
> support for that. You would still say that you and the official pgAdmin
> forum does not provide support for these forks, but that their maintainers
> do. You can also explicitly say you don't endorse the forks, but are
> making their existence known as a community service.
>
> I think having this pointer on this page and probably in other places will
> help to cool some user concerns about having to choose between a rock and a
> hard place, not supported versus less stable.
>

The problem is (and I had a brief discussion with the guys from OpenSCG
about this yesterday), I don't think they are going to do any additional
work. The effort required to support PG 10.0 is significant due to the
changes needed following the addition of declarative partitioning.

If that's not the case, please yelp Jim!

>
> You could also mention the fact there are other Postgres clients, however
> just mentioning the BigSQL or similar forks, which specifically are about
> LTS for something you used to support, is the main point and what people
> coming to you would potentially want.
>
> Does that read like a good idea to you?

I'm happy to consider mentioning ongoing support for pgAdmin 3, if that is
going to be a reality with 10.0+ (currently both our version, and OpenSCGs
will work with PG 9.6). It would be for a limited time though, until the
Windows performance issue is resolved, along with multi-monitor support
which is already committed for 1.6. Once those issues are resolved, I don't
believe there are any significant blockers remaining for users; obviously
there are differences, but that will always be the case (and is both
expected and intentional).

I'm not going to list alternative clients though, any more than the
PostgreSQL website would list alternative DBMS. It is the pgAdmin website
after all - if people don't want pgAdmin, there are lists of alternate
clients on www.postgresql.org and wiki.postgresql.org I believe.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company