"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. For perl this is important because they want programmers to be able to assume certain modules are present. For postgres the case is less compelling since there isn't an interoperability issue. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
