Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the idea is that plphp would be in our CVS, but would not be
shipped as part of the main tarball, rather as its own separate tarball.
That is what I'm hoping for ... if it can be shipped as a seperate
tarball, my arguments
I don't mind if its *also* ship'd in the main distribution as well, I
just want that 'quick to download since I already have the
libraries/headers installed' package ...
Any other PL's not currently in your CVS that you might consider to
bring in while you're at it?
/me heres the sound of the
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
I think the idea is that plphp would be in our CVS, but would not be
shipped as part of the main tarball, rather as its own separate tarball.
That is what I'm hoping for ... if it can be shipped
On N, 2005-04-28 at 20:13 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hannu,
But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.
Yeah, we should announce the mailing
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim C. Nasby)
wrote:
Anyone interested in pooling funds for features should take a look at
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/funding.html, which is about a FreeBSD
developer who offered to work full-time on developing some specific
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
That is what pgFoundry was setup for ... to give projects the visibiilty
they would get through the core distribution by making sure they are
referenced in a central place, but providing the maintainers with direct
CVS access to make changes to their code in a timely
Ron Mayer wrote:
* I'd like to see the status of pgFoundry projects on
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl
Right now I have confidence in most of the contrib
modules largely because I can quickly see if they
succeed or fail.
I'd like any pgFoundry project that is released
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:53:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
See my cross-posting where I specifically state I have no plans for
buildfarm to test things outside core. It's doable in principle, but
would involve huge amounts of work, for which I at least (as buildfarm's
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 04:53:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
See my cross-posting where I specifically state I have no plans for
buildfarm to test things outside core. It's doable in principle, but
would involve huge amounts of work, for which I at least (as
On K, 2005-04-27 at 22:21 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved. Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
by other companies.
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Which is why (hate to beat a dead horse) many OSS projects have moved
to 6 month release cycles.
Well, it is a two-sided thing. On one hand, businesses usually need new
features yesterday, but on the other hand, business would loose most
of the benefit of getting the
On Thursday 28 April 2005 01:48, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized? In fact,
it might have be happening already.
Well that depends... If the companies are writing for
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened
with Fujitsu
that I don't see happening with the current companies involved.
Companies are already duplicating work that is also done by
community members or by other companies.
That is why we have 80 Linux distributions
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu
that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved.
Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members
or
by other companies.
That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava
Hannu,
But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.
Yeah, we should announce the mailing list. Actually, I did direct e-mail a
bunch of people
Robert Treat wrote:
ISTM the allure of differentiation and branding is going to be too strong for
us to prevent such things. An easy way to differentiate is to add some
proprietary/unique extension to the main code and then package that up. If
you have to have all your extensions be put
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved. Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
by other companies.
That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava and plJ.
And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase. That is a
very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
community involvement from the start, including user interface,
implementation, and coding
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved. Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
by other companies.
That is bound to happen no
Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized? In fact,
it might have be happening already.
Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
PostgreSQL I don't think they would have a problem
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized? In fact,
it might have be happening already.
Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
PostgreSQL I
21 matches
Mail list logo
