On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Neil Tiffin <ne...@neiltiffin.com> wrote:
> I have looked at PGXN and would never install anything from it. Why? > Because it is impossible to tell, without inside knowledge or a lot of work, > what is actively maintained and tested, and what is an abandoned > proof-of-concept or idea. Well, you can see the last release dates for a basic idea of that sort of thing. Also the release status (stable, unstable, testing). > There is no indication of what versions of pg any of PGXN modules are tested > on, or even if there are tests that can be run to prove the module works > correctly with a particular version of pg. Yeah, I’ve been meaning to integrate http://pgxn-tester.org/ results for all modules, which would help with that. In the meantime you can hit that site itself. Awesome work by Tomas Vondra. > There are many modules that have not been updated for several years. What is > their status? If they break is there still someone around to fix them or > even cares about them? If not, then why waste my time. These are challenges to open-source software in general, and not specific to PGXN. > So adding to Jim’s comment above, anything that vets or approves PGXN modules > is, in my opinion, essentially required to make PGXN useful for anything > other than a scratchpad. Most of the distributions on PGXN feature links to their source code repositories. > A big help would be to pull in the date of the last git commit in the module > overview and ask the authors to edit the readme to add what major version of > pg the author last tested or ran on. That’s difficult to maintain; I used to do it for pgTAP, was too much work. pgxn-tester.org is a much better idea. Best, David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
