Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Note that what Tom is proposing is actually yanking *all* PLs from the
>> core source tree, but having them all within the core CVS ... I believe
>> his "motivation" is that he only has one CVSROOT to set to get at all the
>> files, but that they are seperate from the core distribution itself ...
>
> plpgsql should probably stay where it is, since it has no special
> outside dependencies, but the other three could be separated out.
>
>> Basically, each has to be buildable/distributable standalone, but easily
>> accessible for making changes if/when APIs change ...
>
> I want them all in the same CVS basically to avoid any version skew
> issues.  They should always have the same branches and the same tags
> as the core, for instance; and it seems hard to keep separate
> repositories in sync that closely.
>
> But packaging them as separately buildable tarballs that depend only
> on the installed core fileset (headers + pgxs) seems a fine idea.

Based on that criteria, I wouldn't be adverse to having a "static copy" of 
stuff like JDBC/ODBC in the core CVS ... not development copies, but 
something that Dave could submit a patch to close to a release so that 
when packaging/tagging is done, a jdbc.tar.gz package (or odbc.tar.gz 
package) could also be included "as part of the core distribution" ... 
same with the various libs ...

development for each would still be on pgfoundry/gborg ...

it would just mean that when someone went to:
    /pub/source/v8.1.0

they would find a libpqxx.tar.gz, jdbc.tar.gz, odbc.tar.gz, etc file ...

not sure if that would create more headaches then its worth though, but 
its a thought ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664