Re: 7.4 and Pygresql - Mailing list pgsql-interfaces

First of all I am responding using my darcy@druid.net identity as that is the 
one subscribed to these lists.  Just to make it clear, Gerhard is not 
responding publicly to private email.  My email went to the mailing list but 
I used my darcy@PygreSQL.org identity so it is stalled waiting for moderator 
approval.  Perhaps, Marc, you can whitelist darcy@PygreSQL.org as I tend to 
switch to that email identity when discussing PyGreSQL.

On December 4, 2003 08:46 am, Gerhard Häring wrote:
> I've recommended pyPgSQL *or* psycopg, because I honestly believe that
> they're better options for developers (a lot more complete, and actively
> developed, and bug reports/patches don't get lost). So it's not true that I
> only tried to promote the project I'm involved in.

I appreciate that.  I just think that whatever project we are involved in we 
should only talk about the positives in public.  This is what the PostgreSQL 
project does with respect to MySQL and others.  I am also a NetBSD developer 
and we take the same tack wrt FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.

> Yes, thanks for folding them in. I had one relevation wrt. PyGreSQL once,
> though, which left a very bad taste. This was that fetchmany()/fetchone()
> was broken, and was for more than one year, there apparently was a patch
> floating around on the PyGreSQL list, but got lost. So when the issue came
> up again on pgsql-bugs, I hunted down the bug, produced a patch and lobbied
> for it going in in 7.1.3 (?), which was a task of its own.

Well, I think that we are in a better situation now.  There are more people 
dedicated to PyGreSQL with direct access and we have the ability to add more.  
You were actually going to be on my list of people to invite to join the new 
team.  Would you be interested?

> > PyGreSQL is far from dead.  There will soon be a new web site and we will
> > be putting out a new version soon.
>
> Good luck :-)

Thank you.

> > Meanwhile, the CVS repository is publicly available and the current
> > version works quite well with the current version of PostgreSQL. Don't
> > write us off just yet.
>
> Where's the new stuff?
>
> Both the CVS at GBorg and the one at druid.net contain the PyGreSQL code
> I've seen before. Nothing there looks like code from PoPy was already
> merged in. Is the new codebase publicly available, yet?

The GBorg system just never worked for me.  I think they were having problems 
at the time but I have plenty of resources to serve my own pages (including 
my own ISP) so it works out just as well to use that.  I should really see 
about taking down the GBorg one.

As for PoPy, we are still discussing our plan of attack.  We don't want to 
rush in so fast that we make the tree unusable.  Also, I should really get 
out one more version with all the latest changes before we start the merge.  
I hope to do that this weekend.

> It's mostly gut feeling that I don't like the current PyGreSQL
> implementation, but if you want, I can try to come up with constructive
> criticism. This might take a few days, though.

PyGreSQL does have that duality with the "Classic" as well as the DB-API 
interface.  I certainly have concentrated personally on the Classic side.  
One of the things I hope to get out of this merge is a more robust DB-API 
side as well as a better integration between the two.  There is a lot of 
redundant code in PyGreSQL.  perhaps that is what your gut is complaining 
about.

> Let's try not to make this into a personal matter, I have nothing against
> you D'Arcy and appreciate the work you've put into makeing PostgreSQL
> available to Python users.

I agree.  I hope it is clear that I respect you and appreciate your work.  
That's probably why this bothered me more than it would from someone else.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
PyGreSQL Development Group
http://www.PyGreSQL.org