Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2007-10-10 kell 11:06, kirjutas Joshua D. Drake:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:01:34 +0100
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 
> > "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > >> > I also agree with this.  We have to pretend it isn't in /contrib
> > >> > now, figure out where want it, then put it there (contrib,
> > >> > pgfoundry, core).
>  
> > I just don't see the point in putting it in pgfoundry. It's already in
> > pgfoundry as part of Skytools.
> >  The whole point of having such a
> > datatype is to build common interface to abstract away the internals
> > of the database. That makes the pgfoundry modules (Skytools and
> > Slony) easier to maintain separately.
> 
> I missed the part that it is part of Skytools already but as counter
> point, what makes sense at that point is for Skytools to remove it and
> make it it's own module.

Is'nt  this just what happened when it was moved to contrib ?

>  That way Slony (which is not a pgfoundry
> project) or anyone else that wants to make use of it can.
> 
> > 
> > Putting it in core or contrib means that when we change the snapshot
> > mechanics in 8.4 the same developer will be able to fix the module at
> > the same time (and find out if his changes break it at the same
> > time).
> 
> Which is very cool, for *8.4* :)
> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 
>