On Fri, 10 May 2002 10:58:28 +0200
"Iavor Raytchev" <iavor.raytchev@verysmall.org> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> After Marc Fournier commented, it is time for pgaccess.org to make a
> decision.
>
> It is clear the project needs the following tools.
>
> - web site
> - mailing list(s)
> - cvs
> - bug tracking system
>
> It is clear, that there is a small new group with fresh desire to
> contribute in a dedicated way.
>
> It is clear, that pgaccess has only one meaning and this is PostgreSQL.
>
> It is clear, that the PostgreSQL core team is very supportive.
>
> It is clear, that pgaccess.org efforts can not result in anything good
> without a close collaboration with the PostgreSQL core team.
>
> Now, when we heard many different opinions, the question is - what is
> the best decision of organization.
>
> I would make the following summary, please, send your comments -
>
>
> SUMMARY
>
> 1] In terms of infrastructure, a separate web site, mailing list(s) and
> bug tracking system will increase the flexibility of the pgaccess team
> and will not create additional (and not very useful) burden for the
> PostgreSQL core team. The pgaccess is a tool - it is not an integral
> part of PostgreSQL and does not need day-to-day sharing. In the
> beginning it will be developed rather for the stable, than for the
> future versions of PostgreSQL.
>
> 2] It is clear that there must be one master copy of the CVS. The
> possibilities are two - this copy is kept with PostgreSQL or this copy
> is kept with pgaccess.org
>
> If the PostgreSQL core team can provide a CVS repository with similar
> flexibility to that it would have being based on the pgaccess.org server
> - I would vote for a PostgreSQL hosted CVS. This will be the naval cord
> between the two projects.
>
> 3] Still - the only thing that is not clear to me is - who is going to
> collect all patches and make one whole form them. As long as each of us
> works on a different thing - this should not be a big problem, but still
> - needs to be one person.
>
This looks all good to me, except I have one question: How will pgaccess
be distributed? Personally, I like the idea that PG comes with pgaccess in
the distribution, so I would hate to see that go away. Even though there
are people that don't use pgaccess, it is always nice to have a default
tool that comes with PG (yes, I know there is psql).
--brett
p.s. I am willing to help out as well...
