> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:09:07 -0500, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >>> I really would like continuing to work on that and to share ideas, >>> Mark, >>> Maybe we could coordinate efforts? >> >> That sounds good. How about sharing the code you have through a source >> control system? We could perhaps use the established CVS or SVN server, >> although I have a strong preference for using darcs... I feel more >> productive with it. However, I'm flexible. >> > > I think that's a good idea. I'm not tightened to a specific SCM, too. > However, > i've don't have access to a public server where a SCM is running at the > moment.
I wouldn't have any objections to shifting the "altperl" code to a separate place, from several perspectives: 1. I quite like Darcs, too :-) 2. Having others responsible for the release cycle for "altperl" would remove a burden I am not over-interested in carrying. (Albeit one that is typically pretty small.) 3. Keeping the "slony1-engine" module down to those things that are directly replication components would simplify how testing is understood. At present, none of the usual tests that take place in verifying that Slony-I works involve "altperl" components. I'm not keen on complicating the tests by adding that. Dropping responsibility for *that* is actually more significant than 2... There's my few cents... _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
