Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 6/7/09 10:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> OK, that's more or less what I thought, and what I intended to convey
> >> upthread. As far as core Postgres is concerned this is a new feature,
> >> and we haven't worked out all the kinks yet.
> >
> > Yes, I'm calling it "pg_migrator beta" in any advocacy/PR about it.
> > AFAIC, until we have these sorts of issues worked out, it's still a beta.
>
> afaiks bruce stated he is going to remove the BETA tag from pg_migrator
> soon so I guess calling it beta in the main project docs will confuse
> the hell out of people(or causing them to think that it is not beta any
> more).
> So maybe calling it experimental(from the POV of the main project) or
> something similar might still be the better solution.
This all sounds very discouraging. It is like, "Oh, my, there is a
migration tool and it might have bugs. How do we prevent people from
using it?"
Right now nothing in the project is referring to pg_migrator except in
the press release, and it is marked as beta there. How do you want to
deemphasize it more than that? Why did I bother working on this if the
community reaction is to try to figure out how to make people avoid
using it?
I am now thinking I need to my own PR for pg_migrator because obviously
the community is only worried it might have a bug. Instead of testing
it, looking at the code, submitting bug reports, or anything
constructive, you sit around figuring out how to put a disparaging label
on it!
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
