On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 06:33:58PM +0100, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > gborg is another way to organize, and of course www.pgaccess.org is a
> > way too. It partly depends on how you see the future of pgaccess. If it
> > stays tightly coupled to pgsql, then perhaps it may as way stay
> > organized with pgsql.
>
> I was working on the assumption that PgAccess was tightly coupled to postgres
> [and versions of postgres] and since Teo was busy with other things and the PG
> commiters were happy to apply patches that I would be submitting patches to the
> postgres CVS.
What we'll probably need is a note from teo to HACKERS, letting the CVS
commiters know who is 'approved' to bless pgaccess patches: i.e. their
patches should be commited, and they can bless third party patches.
> I see no reason why pgaccess needs a separate repository, I presume it can be
> fetched from the postgress CVS as a single entity. Although I haven't tried
> this.
Works fine. Only tricky part would be providing the windows binary bits
(dlls) that have traditionally resided on teo's site.
>
> BTW, I had been wondering what to call the Schema tab now that that label is
> required for schemas rather than design.
If you check the archives, when I submitted that patch, I had the
forsight to ask if anyone could come up with a better name, forseeing
the collison that is happening today: no one came up with anything.
I agree it needs renaming. How about one of 'Charting', 'Graphing',
'Diagrams', 'Graphics', 'PrettyPictures', 'BossBait' ...
Ross
