Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 7/13/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> This is really the whole issue right here: you want a monolithic "core"
> distribution.  I cannot begin to list the number of things wrong with
> that approach, but suffice it to say that that's not the way PostgreSQL
> is moving.

I'm not going to argue at all and will gladly second Josh's statement.If the core doesn't want to include it,
commercialcompanies
 
(EnterpriseDB, Command Prompt, ...) and consultants will continue to
do it for us.  I mean, why should we make it easier for the end-user?
Especially when we know there are certain components that practically
every database user needs (ODBC, JDBC, etc.)

> We are getting larger and we need to cater to having lots of
> sub-projects.  A "core" distro containing everything that's reasonably
> popular will eventually collapse of its own weight.

I don't think we should include everything, and I belive that
"collapse" is debatable.  The important part is how the distro itself
is managed.  One can easily create a "core" distribution which
includes PL/Java, ODBC, JDBC, etc.  All of them don't have to reside
in the same CVS tree, but they can be built and released together.  I
know because I've done it... and it's not that difficult.  The hard
part is actually deciding what to include and what not to.

In general, we're talking about well established projects (PL/Java,
JDBC, ODBC, ...) with a great track record; not someone's personal
little proof-of-concept hack on pgfoundry.

Like I said, this discussion always seems to come up and we always go
back to saying "leave it to pgfoundry", "we'll promote pgfoundry",
"pgfoundry is the best place for it".  Yet, I haven't really seen any
action to make pgfoundry any better or more well-known.  I asked
before, is pgfoundry/gborg even mentioned in the documentation?

> The right way to proceed is what was mentioned in another
> message: work harder at educating packagers about which
> non-core projects are worth including in their packages.

OK, but who is going to do this?  It certainly doesn't sound like any
of us want to spend the time educating packagers as we're either
working on our own things or for companies that already do package
PostgreSQL.

It just seems like we keep having lengthy recurring discussions that
seem to go nowhere.  No solution is ever reached, we just keep the
status quo.  Sure, risks either pay off or they don't, but it's just
as easy to die from stagnation as well.

I wish we could poll the actual end-users and see what their thoughts
are, because we're sort of thinking in a vacuum here (no pun
intended).

I can readily accept being wrong; but every once in a while, we just
need a little innovation.

-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/