Re: When should be advocate external projects?

On May 12, 2016 16:09, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:
> > There has been a lot of back and forth about when we (as a community)
should
> > advocate external projects as well as where we should advocate external
> > projects. It seems the more advocacy minded individuals would like to be
> > more inclusive whilst the -hackers and old school folks don't want to
bother
> > with it at all (this is not exclusive, I know there are exceptions).
> >
> > I think we need to come up with some guidelines. I have my own ideas of
what
> > those should be:
> >
> > * Must be released under an OSI approved license
> > * Must have source downloadable without barrier (no
registration for
> > example)
> > * Must have a way to file bug reports
> >
> > There are others but they may be controversial so I will leave them for
now.
> >
> > One example that I just recently looked at was PgBadger. PgBader is
> > primarily developed by Dalibo but:
> >
> > * It is released under an OSI approved license
> > * Has source downloadable without barrier
> > * Has a way to file bug reports
> > * Has an open mailing list
> > * An explicit link to how to contribute
> >
> > It does make it a point of highlighting Dalibo as the support provider
but
> > it also links directly to:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support
> >
> > And shows those professionals respect too.[1]
>
> I like the idea of having a page on postgresql.org where we say "here
> are a list of other great open source tools that you should check out
> and use with PostgreSQL". It could be grouped by category. I think a
> "drivers" category would be really good - like why should people have
> to use Google to find a node.js driver for PostgreSQL? And there can
> be a "replication" category that lists pglogical, Slony, Londiste,
> Bucardo. And a "middleware" category for pgpool and pgbouncer.
>
> There may be some cases where it's not clear whether something
> qualifies, so, yeah, we might need some guidelines for that. But I'm
> +1 on the concept. I am -1 on promoting pglogical over every other
> thing out there but I am +1 for promoting it as one of several
> widely-used replication tools for PostgreSQL.

That's basically what the software catalogue does, isn't it? It needs to be
revamped to be more user friendly, and more promoted, but as a basis?

/Magnus