Re: www.pgaccess.org - the official story (the way I saw it) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

What about http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgaccess/?  It looks 
inactive but somebody did set it up on 2002-04-25.  I think I
found it from Teo's website.

MikE


> 
> To sum it up -
> 
> -> pgaccess has not been officially updated since January 2001
> 
>    = there is no real interest in it or the interest is not public
> 
> -> the author has no time
> 
>    = the project has no leader
> 
> -> there are several people actively working on it
> 
>    = there is some interest
> 
> -> the author gives us the chance to bring life
> 
>    = if we like it we must get it
> 
> So we did.
> 
> We took the www.pgaccess.org domain (on the name of Teo). We set up a
> server. And we started searching for the latest pgaccess versioin to insert
> it into the cvs.
> 
> First I thought Teo should have the latest version. He said - no, it should
> be with the PostgreSQL distribution. I went there, but it did not seem very
> fresh. Then I continued my investigation and wrote to the
> webmaster@postgresql.org - my goal was to really find all patches and
> intersted people and to bring the project to some useful place. Vince
> Vielhaber wrote back that I should ask the HACKERS.
> 
> So I did.
> 
> And now we are here.
> 
> We heard a lot of opinions from different sides.
> 
> I would make the following summary -
> 
> 1] During the last 1 year there has not been an active interest in and/or
> development of pgaccess. Or if it has been - it has not been very official.
> 
> 2] Currently there are at least four people who actively need pgaccess and
> write for it - Bartus, Chris, Boyan and myself.
> 
> 3] To talk about pgaccess without talking about PostgreSQL is a nonsense -
> pgaccess has one purpose and this is PostgreSQL.
> 
> 4] PostgreSQL is too much bigger than pgaccess (organizationwize) - the
> proximity kills pgaccess. PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL. It is great - that's why
> we spent so much time trying to do something about it. Bug pgaccess is not
> PostgreSQL - it is one of the great tools around PostgreSQL and must be
> independent.
> 
> 5] gborg is a mess (I hope I do not hurt anybody's feelings) - just see the
> broken images on first page that have not been fixed for at least several
> days. And the missing search. I have been searching in gborg for pgaccess
> several times - and I could not find it. I have the feeling that before
> gborg there was a very pretty postgresql.org style page with the projects -
> what happened to it?
> 
> PROPOSAL
> 
> What pgaccess needs is some fresh air - it needs a small and fresh team. It
> needs own web site, own cvs, own mailing list. So that the people who love
> it, write for it and really need it can be easy to identify and to talk to.
> This will not break its relationship to PostgreSQL in any way (see 3] above)
> 
> At the end - I am not experienced how decisions are taken in an open source
> community - I have no idea what is next.
> 
> May be one can write a summary what are the bad sides of the above proposal.
> And if there are no such really - we should just proceed and have this nice
> tool alive and running.
> 
> Thanks everybody,
> 
> Iavor
> 
> --
> www.pgaccess.org