On 05/11/2016 05:29 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 02:18 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There has been a lot of back and forth about when we (as a community)
>> should advocate external projects as well as where we should advocate
>> external projects. It seems the more advocacy minded individuals would
>> like to be more inclusive whilst the -hackers and old school folks don't
>> want to bother with it at all (this is not exclusive, I know there are
>> exceptions).
>>
>> I think we need to come up with some guidelines. I have my own ideas of
>> what those should be:
>>
>> * Must be released under an OSI approved license
>> * Must have source downloadable without barrier (no registration for
>> example)
>> * Must have a way to file bug reports
>>
>> There are others but they may be controversial so I will leave them for
>> now.
>
> To avoid proliferation, I think we should also limit them by
> exclusivity. There are no other real contenders for the belts that
> pgBadger, check_postgres, and pgAdmin hold, so all of those should be
> promoted.
I am not sure about PgAdmin, especially as of version 4 but you have
good points with pgBader and check_postgres.
>
> That could perhaps be extended from one to two, which would allow us to
> promote both PgBackRest and Barman.
>
I would need to look into the similarities and differences. I admit I
know more about PgBackRest than I do Barman.
On the other hand, why don't we want proliferation? Obviously we don't
want to list 20 tools in a release but we can certainly point to a
"tools" page where the FOSS tools are given precedence.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
