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

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I think another good compromise might be to soften the wording a bit.
Instead of just "it's not supported", maybe something like "pgAdmin3 is no
longer maintained, and only works with PostgreSQL version 9.6 and earlier"?

It's not changing reality, but it might change perception a bit.

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.
>
>
Yeah, I think it's an unreasonable burden to put on the pgadmin team to
list a selection of other tools. As you say there are places on other sites
that do that. Some of them are definitely i need of updating (probably
content wise and definitely design and easy to use wise), but that's not a
task for the pgadmin team.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>