On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to
> facilitate its maintenance and development.
No argument from me there, especially as I have my own fork in github,
but that's up to the current maintainers.
>> Granted, a nice thing about integrating with core is we'd probably
>> have more of an early warning when reshuffling of PG breaks pg_reorg
>> (e.g. the recent splitting of the htup headers), but such changes have
>> been quick and easy to fix so far.
>
> Yes, that is also why I am proposing to integrate it into core. Its
> maintenance pace would be faster and easier than it is now in pgfoundry.
If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier"
development, well I don't really buy that. Yes, there would presumably
be more eyeballs on the project, but you could make the same argument
about any auxiliary Postgres project which wants more attention, and
we can't have everything in core. And I fail to see how being in-core
makes development "easier"; I think everyone here would agree that the
bar to commit things to core is pretty darn high. If you're concerned
about the [lack of] development on pg_reorg, there are plenty of
things to fix without moving the project. I recently posted an "issues
roundup" to the reorg list, if you are interested in pitching in.
Josh
