On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > As for current PostgreSQL organization, can someone explain me which W32 port
> > > will make its way to PostgreSQL main source code? Can someone publish a
> > > schedule for replication availability? Who is in charge of explaining newbees
> > > that MySQL InnoDB is just a marketing lie? What is the current PostgreSQL
> > > market share?
> >
> > I think the first native Win32 port that gets contributet will make it.
>
> This line bothers me. With multiple people working on Win32, I would
> like us to decide how we would _like_ such a port to be implemented. I
> think this will assist those working on the project to _know_ that their
> work will be accepted if submitted.
1. that is not accurate, as it won't necessarily be accepted if submitted
... its not like years ago when are standards were lax ... Jan is
perfectly accurate in his assessment of which will make it in, except for
omitting one point ... it has to meet our standards ... so, its more "the
first to contribute *and* meet our standards" ...
> Also, I encourage people working on Win32 ports to contribute their work
> _as_ the complete each module, rather than as one huge patch. That way,
> other Win32 porters can benefit from their work and maybe we can get
> this done in 1/2 the time.
This is what should be done anyway ... I wouldn't even be so much worried
abou t"other Win32 porters" as much as trying to integrate that 'hugh
patch' at a later date, consiedering all the changes that go into our code
:)
> What I don't want to happen is two Win32 projects contributing duplicate
> code at the same time. It is a waste when they could have combined
> their efforts.
IMHO, that is actually their problem ... without meaning to sound crass
about it, but its not like we haven't discussed it extensively here, and
openly ... hell, we've even tried to break down the whole project into
smaller components to make the whole easier to merge in :)
> So, my message to Win32 porters is to communicate what you are doing,
> including implementation details, and contribute back as soon as you
> can. If you don't, someone else may beat you to it, and your patch may
> be rejected, leaving you to either scrap your work or continually port
> your changes to every future PostgreSQL release.
Agreed here ... and this doesn't just apply to Win32 porters ... there
have been *alot* of "big projects" worked on over the years that have been
implemented in pieces so that code-base doesn't diverge too much, making
patching difficult ... the last thing anyone should want is to work for a
few months to create a nice big patch to find out that what they have
"fixed" got yanked out of the code already :)
