Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 937d27e10807220647k4ce9cca1nccb1eecaac5124b0@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > >> From a project-management point of view, it's insanity to set a presumption >> that pgfoundry is just a proving ground for code that should eventually get >> into core once it's mature enough or popular enough or whatever. We *have >> to* encourage the development of a cloud of subprojects around the core, or >> core will eventually collapse of its own weight. > > One option might be the Perl approach of having separately developed projects > which are snapshotted at stable points and included in the release. It has the > chance to offer the best of both worlds by offloading development outside of > core but provide users with a perceived "complete" system. Yeah, but then what happens when the offloaded development/maintenance doesn't happen? We'd end up pulling the package or having to maintain it ourselves anyway. /D -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: