On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
>> From a project-management point of view, it's insanity to set a presumption
>> that pgfoundry is just a proving ground for code that should eventually get
>> into core once it's mature enough or popular enough or whatever. We *have
>> to* encourage the development of a cloud of subprojects around the core, or
>> core will eventually collapse of its own weight.
>
> One option might be the Perl approach of having separately developed projects
> which are snapshotted at stable points and included in the release. It has the
> chance to offer the best of both worlds by offloading development outside of
> core but provide users with a perceived "complete" system.
Yeah, but then what happens when the offloaded development/maintenance
doesn't happen? We'd end up pulling the package or having to maintain
it ourselves anyway.
/D
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
