Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 October 2007 02:09, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 01:14 -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would prefer that we backported pg_standby into 8.2 contrib, so the
>>>> solution is where people need it to be. If not...
>>>>
>>> Don't know about the policy to put things in already-released-version
>>> but if it's not the case, we could at least put the code somewhere in
>>> the ftp.postgresql.org. IMHO pgfoundry project will confuse people.
>>>
>> Both: ftp and pgfoundry.
>>
>
> Putting it on pgfoundry would automatically put it in the ftp tree
> (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/pgFoundry). If it was to go on
> pgfoundry (which I'd recommend) I'd suggest removing it from 8.3 contrib
> before we release (cause having it in both places is really going to cause
> confusion)
>
>
One of pgfoundry's explicit purposes is for backports of features. Given
that we (rightly) don't backport new features in mainline releases,
where else should they go? I don't buy the "confusing" argument. If
necessary the author can plaster big red notices in a README on the
pgfoundry release saying "don't use this past postgres version x"
cheers
andrew
