Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0
От | Marc G. Fournier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20040814154204.B1887@ganymede.hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0 (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0
Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0 |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: >> Now fortunately, this spartanic tarball isn't what most users will >> get if they select PostgreSQL in their OS distribution installer. So >> the question would rather be *what is our recommendation for package >> maintainers?* That collection is what hopefully most end users will >> experience as the PostgreSQL database product, and that is the >> picture we have to draw in our release announcement. > > Take a look at, say, KDE or GNOME. Their software is split up in all > kinds of ways. Each little program has its own maintainer, version > number, etc. Yet, to the general public it surely seems like KDE and > GNOME are pretty integrated. Why is that? > > It's because above all these small parts there is an umbrella > organization that provides services to each small part to make them > look integrated, such as: > > - release management > - security issue management > - localization support > - documentation support > - bug tracking > - packaging support > - marketing support > ... and more. > > We don't provide those services. Back in the days when everything was > one tarball, we provided those services in an integrated fashion by > default, but I can understand why that system doesn't work beyond a > certain size. But by gborg or pgfoundry we don't provide these > services either. A developer that makes use of gborg basically just > rents machine space and bandwidth with some preinstalled software that > allows him to set up the above mentioned services for his own project. > But that doesn't make it integrated. > > So, for the issue at hand, no matter how much we like replication, > endorse slony, or respect Jan's work, it's not part of PostgreSQL, in > the eyes of the public. And a press release or three isn't going to > fundamentally change that, because the facts don't back it up. Do we not make some headway towards that with the work on pgxs? I realize that only addresses part of the problem, but it does make a start ... How do we continue to 'bridge the gap', so to say? pginstaller does, I think, a good job of it on the Windows platform, by giving one interface to pull in multiple 'tools' ... any way of mirroring this sort of thing in Unix? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: