On Saturday 14 August 2004 10:25, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 8/13/2004 12:01 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > But the fact is 'we' (PGDG) do not 'have' a replication solution; all are
> > third party, and there are some that are open source. I personally think
> What part of the Slony-I replication system do 'we' (PGDG) not 'have'?
> The original design work got published and was up for discussion before
> the implementation work started, the entire development happened under
> the BSD license, the project was hosted on gborg from the very beginning
> and all .c, .h and .sql files in the entire tree are Copyright PGDG. The
> project lead is a PGDG Core team member and the project team consist of
> more people outside of Afilias then inside. If that isn't enough, then I
> would like to know what's left that we could announce at all?
Then WHY are we not bundling this? If WE have it, then WE need to integrate
it. It is not integrated; this is the issue.
> Please stop looking at Afilias as a 3rd party. Afilias is a member of
> the PGDG as everyone else. The problem that even people inside of this
> community can't imagine a company being just a member of this team
> doesn't mean that it is impossible.
Well, looks like I hit a nerve. Not intentionally, mind you, but all this
talk in this thread has made Slony look to be third party. If it is not
third party, then it needs more visibility.
To answer your next message, yes, I think this is an effect of unbundling from
the main tarball things and stuffing them out to gborg to languish.
I for one am excited about Slony's prospects. This package, once I get up to
speed with it, is going to make my life a lot easier. I do, however, wish it
were more prominently announced and, yes, I do wish it were more tightly
integrated.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
