"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Yeah, it's probably a plan which would work better once there's some solidly maintained external projects for an extended period of time. I suppose it's not entirely unlike the history of tsearch. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
