Dave Cramer wrote:
>
> On 21-Jul-08, at 4:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:17:39PM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> pgFoundry ain't the CPAN, alas.
>>
>> Maybe that's the problem that really needs solving?
>>
>> One of the big Postgres features is its extensibility. I agree
>> that the extensions can sometimes be hard to find, but surely the
>> answer to that is not an infinitely large source tarball?
>>
>>
> I'd have to agree with Andrew here. Making it easy to get extensions
> would solve lots of problems.
What about starting a secondary team that would review extensions?
Projects on pgfoundry could be identified as reviewed and approved as a
type of recommendation that they are of acceptable quality to use in
production - maybe against certain versions.
What I would see is current core developers teaching a new group of
developers to do the add-on code reviews to a point where they could
continue on by themselves - one or two from core may wish to stay in
this group - with core checking in from time to time to ensure the
quality doesn't slip. Thereby giving some confidence in the use of the
add-ons that get *certified*.
A new add-on would be presented to this group and maybe voted on in one
of the lists (General or Admin?) to get acceptance into the review process.
Anyone interested in starting this?
I do agree that the main code doesn't need to contain every feature that
is available. But we do need to improve the perception of add-ons.
Hardly anyone thinks twice about adding an extension to firefox, perl,
gimp or oscommerce or even drivers to the os, and we need to aim for a
similar thought here.
I do think that having a list of reviewed and approved add-ons that is
easily found on the main site along with release downloads will help
along those lines.
We need to promote that postgresql isn't a one-size-fits-all solution,
it is a solid product that can be customised to suite your needs.
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
