Chris Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> With the continued success of our community project site
>>> www.pgfoundry.org we also have the following projects developing
>>> additional add-on features to offer expanded functionality to what is
>>> included in the main PostgreSQL release. These features may be too
>>> cutting edge to be considered part of the main project or may just
>>> cater to a small market.
>
> Right. Perhaps more like...
>
> "These projects include some that require different release cycles
> than that of the main database engine, as well as projects catering to
> specific smaller markets."
I think each of these statements * undersell the extensible architecture of postgresql that enables these projects *
don'tcommunicate the wide range of capabilities offered by pgfoundry projects * could have been clearer in saying
thatpgfoundry's the officially preferred place for extensions (which is still confusing with some internet links
stillpointing to gborg)
How about:
"PostgreSQL's extensible architecture has lead to a large community of extensions ranging from additional procedural
languages,interfaces to external systems, new index types, and replication and high availability tools that are hosted
onthe official PostgreSQL community project site www.pgfoundry.org. Community projects that have made significant
advancesin the 8.2 release cycle include [pgpool|pljava|full_disjunction - whatever the list was]."
I think the tone of this sentence suggests that pgfoundry is separate
from core because there is such a large/wide range of extensions -
rather than that they're unstable "too cutting edge" or of little
interest "catering to specific markets". While each are true,
I think the large scope of extensions is a bigger reason, as well
as sounding more like a positive than a negative.
Ron
