Re: [HACKERS] inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement

[Dave Cramer]

Josh Berkus wrote: Dave, all: This issue has come up before, and I opposed it then when the interfaces were removed from the main tarball. I really don't see the upside to reducing the size of the tarball at the expense of ease of use. ÂSeems to me we are bending over backwards to make it easy for people with dial up connections to download our "enterprise class" database. Small tarball size isn't the *primary* reason for having our "push-it-out-to-pgFoundry" attitude, it's the *tertiary* reason. The main two reasons are: 1) If we start including everything that's "useful", where do we stop? There are enough pg add-ins to fill a CD -- 200 projects on GBorg and pgFoundry and others elsewhere. And some of them probably conflict with each other. Any decision to include some projects and not others will alienate people and possibly be a mis-evaluation; the libpq++/libpqxx mistake comes to mind. My main concern was pushing out existing code, not adding code that was not in the tarball. I would have to agree deciding which to include would be onerous. 2) As long as we're using CVS, the only way to organize autonomous project teams that have authority over their special areas but no ability to change central code is to "push out" projects to separate CVS trees. This has never been an issue before, AFAIK, nobody with commit privliges in a separate package has ever changed the code where they weren't supposed to. To sum this up; the arguments presented are: 1) The tarball is/was too big however nobody ever complained. 2) CVS does not allow different groups to have commit privliges, but nobody has ever violated the trust Is this really the situation ? >From my perspective, putting together a coherent "distribution" of PostgreSQL with all the add-ins you want is the job of commercial distributors and possibly OSS projects like Bizgres. -- Dave Cramer http://www.postgresintl.com 519 939 0336 ICQ#14675561