On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "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.
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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
