"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> From a PgSQL Project standpoint, pgaccess has always been included as a
> way of increasing the overall distribution of the package as a valid GUI
> interface ... all that has ever happened in the past is that when a new
> release came out from Teo, Bruce has generally downloaded it and replaced
> what we had in CVS ... there were no patches involved ... I don't see why
> that has to change, does it?
Ideally I think there should be only one master CVS copy of pgaccess ---
either that should be the one in the postgresql.org tree, or we should
remove pgaccess from postgresql.org and let it become a standalone
project with its own CVS someplace else. I know that right now, there
are some changes in the postgresql.org tree that are not in Teo's tree,
because I made some 7.2 fixes there last summer (having forgotten that
our sources were not the master copy). This is not good, but it'll
keep happening if there are multiple CVS trees.
Which of those approaches to take is pretty much up to the new
maintainers of pgaccess --- if you guys would rather be a separate
project, fine, or we can work with you if you want postgresql.org
to be the CVS repository. Personally I'd vote for the latter.
The JDBC folks have been working pretty successfully as a sub-project
within the postgresql.org tree, so I think you could do the same.
But you might get more "name recognition" as a separate project.
> If the pgaccess.org folk would like, I can provide them with a means of
> being able to easily upload a new copy of each release to
> ftp.postgresql.org, so that it can make use of the extensive distribution
> system wthat has been developeed over the years ... just let me know ...
Right, if there's a separate CVS we can still arrange to be an FTP
distribution channel.
regards, tom lane
