On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 19:57, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote:
> >
> > > I offered to take over the Gborg pgtcl project because I thought nobody
> > > wanted it. It seemed stalled, having made no releases since beta3 in
> > > November 2002, no CVS updates since January 2003, and no progress on the
> > > reference manual. I assumed the project admins had moved on to other
> > > things and would be glad to turn it over.
> > >
> > > The response I got was no, they don't want to give it up, but I could
> > > join and get CVS commit rights. Not good enough, unless there are going
> > > to be releases. I'm not hearing that there will be releases.
> >
> > If there have been no commits to the gborg version in almost a year, what
> > would a new release be based off of? What I'm really curious of is why
> > the patches to -core didn't get into gborg ... IMHO, the current gborg
> > seems to have gone 'stale' :(
> >
> > > I really don't want to antagonize anyone, but I think a project fork is
> > > in order. I'll put my version into a new project, and we'll see what
> > > happens.
> >
> > Well, that works too ... since I know the gborg version is not in sync
> > with the -core version, and since I think that bringing gborg in sync with
> > -core would be confusing at best ... if you can create the project, I can
>
> Why confusing? Add core changes to gborg, remove the core version, and
> submit patches to improve the gborg version.
>
I agree, I am not sure why it would be confusing. There's really not
been that many updates to the -core version in the past year or so.
