Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20304.1192037385@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > If it doesn't need to be in core, in certainly has zero need to be in > contrib and can push to pgFoundry. One advantage of having it in contrib is buildfarm testing, as indeed we already found out ... although it's true that *keeping* it there now that it passes probably won't teach us too much more. But I think the argument that was being made was mostly that the Slony and Skytools projects would find it easier to depend on a contrib module than on something that has to be fetched separately from pgfoundry. Now they could work around that by including copies of the pgfoundry project in their own distributions, but then they have a collision problem if someone tries to install both together. (I have no idea how likely that is, though; it might not be a big problem in practice?) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: