Hello everybody,
After Marc Fournier commented, it is time for pgaccess.org to make a
decision.
It is clear the project needs the following tools.
- web site
- mailing list(s)
- cvs
- bug tracking system
It is clear, that there is a small new group with fresh desire to contribute
in a dedicated way.
It is clear, that pgaccess has only one meaning and this is PostgreSQL.
It is clear, that the PostgreSQL core team is very supportive.
It is clear, that pgaccess.org efforts can not result in anything good
without a close collaboration with the PostgreSQL core team.
Now, when we heard many different opinions, the question is - what is the
best decision of organization.
I would make the following summary, please, send your comments -
SUMMARY
1] In terms of infrastructure, a separate web site, mailing list(s) and bug
tracking system will increase the flexibility of the pgaccess team and will
not create additional (and not very useful) burden for the PostgreSQL core
team. The pgaccess is a tool - it is not an integral part of PostgreSQL and
does not need day-to-day sharing. In the beginning it will be developed
rather for the stable, than for the future versions of PostgreSQL.
2] It is clear that there must be one master copy of the CVS. The
possibilities are two - this copy is kept with PostgreSQL or this copy is
kept with pgaccess.org
If the PostgreSQL core team can provide a CVS repository with similar
flexibility to that it would have being based on the pgaccess.org server - I
would vote for a PostgreSQL hosted CVS. This will be the naval cord between
the two projects.
3] Still - the only thing that is not clear to me is - who is going to
collect all patches and make one whole form them. As long as each of us
works on a different thing - this should not be a big problem, but still -
needs to be one person.
Iavor
--
www.pgaccess.org
