Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Tom Lane wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Can you have the same tags across different modules in the same CVS 
>server?  If so, that would work.
>  
>

I'm not sure you can tag more than one module at a time. But why would a 
different module be needed? We split the current single module into 
different tarballs, don't we?

>  
>
>>But packaging them as separately buildable tarballs that depend only
>>on the installed core fileset (headers + pgxs) seems a fine idea.
>>    
>>
>
>If, as it currently appears, we'll end up moving in all of plphp, 
>pljava, plr, then we might as well be consistent and offer all 
>procedural languages, with the possible exception of plpgsql, 
>exclusively as a separate tarball, to be released exactly when a server 
>release is done.
>  
>

One per language, or just an "extra language" pack?

>Of course, there are a bunch of build infrastructure issues to be worked 
>out, but let's settle on the tree structure first and then think about 
>the build issues.  (But don't just move stuff and *then* think about 
>the build issues.)
>
>  
>

I agree.

I hope we can also still configure/build/test as now - if not you will 
make my life harder, and it will take lots longer to implement my plan 
to test PLs in buildfarm.

cheers

andrew