On 12/05/2016 09:48, 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)
There is one main fact about pglogical that makes it different to other
projects that I haven't seen mentioned.
As stated on http://2ndquadrant.com/en/resources/pglogical/ and in
pglogicals README.md --
> pglogical is fully open source, released under the PostgreSQL licence
> with copyright novated to the PostgreSQL Development Group
Each source file contains -
> *
> * Copyright (c) 2015, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
> *
2ndquadrent is only mentioned in the README as the source of initial
development and testing.
So if the code is owned by the PostgreSQL Global Development Group, is
it an external project or an official project? Does the location of the
source code repository define a project as unofficial or external?
This could be a time to specify that PGDG will not accept copyright of
external projects before they are accepted into the core repositories.
What discussions/expectations have there been (on or off list) about
the possibility of pglogical being accepted into core?
How is the external development of pglogical different from any feature
that is initially developed in a branch other than master in the
official postgresql repository? At what point does a new feature change
from being someone's personal project to a planned new core feature?
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
