Thread: Criteria for contrib/ versus gborg?
Hi all, As many of you know, PostgreSQL, Inc. has determined that Real Soon Now is the time to release their older version of eRServer as a contribution back to the rserv project. That Has Not Happened Yet, and I Do Not Speak For Them, and so on. But I have agreed to do some of the legwork for this, and I'm stuck doing the documentation, too. I thought that now would be a good time to ask whether it should live as a separate project, or whether it should be in contrib. I don't actually get to make that decision, of course, but if everyone agrees it should go to gborg, I can get to work on my own, whereas if it has to go in contrib, I have to ask someone to do it for me, and I have to find out whether it can go there now, after feature freeze. (If the answer to the latter is, "No," I guess I know what to do, eh?) Here are the arguments I can think of on each side: pro contrib/: - rserv is already there, and this is an upgrade - allows us to say that PostgreSQL ships with field-tested replication in the source tree - expands the visibility, increasing the possibility that some replication system will one day be "built in" - it's not that big, and since it's replacing code now there, it won't bloat the tarball pro gborg: - lots of other valuable things have been forced to go there (procedural languages come to mind; I happen to think that wasa mistake, but of course, I don't run the circus) - the new code depends on Java (with one voice now: "Bleccchhh!"), and since that doesn't ship with PostgreSQL, there's noharm in asking people to download one more thing - allows rserv to attain a separate release schedule, and there's plenty of work to do on this code, so it may see changesfaster than the main PostgreSQL tree. If you have any other arguments, or have an opinion on the matter, I'd like to hear it. Thanks, A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 16:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> pro contrib/:
> - it's not that big, and since it's replacing code now there, it
> won't bloat the tarball
>
> pro gborg:
> - allows rserv to attain a separate release schedule, and there's
> plenty of work to do on this code, so it may see changes faster
> than the main PostgreSQL tree.
>
is this code really a "replacement" for rserv? There has been work on
rserv in contrib that I'm guessing was not used in the commercial
version. are we better off calling this rserv2 or something and letting
both projects stand side by side?
as the person doing the legwork, do you see one location or the other as
a hindrance to getting the release done?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> pro contrib/: You have four pro arguments, two of which are for marketing and the other two are for lazyness :-) > pro gborg: As you note, you will be more independent on gborg, so why not? Maybe a wish for some official mention of this - and other important - gborg project in the documentation ? -- Kaare Rasmussen --Linux, spil,-- Tlf: 3816 2582 Kaki Data tshirts, merchandize Fax: 3816 2501 Howitzvej 75 Åben 12.00-18.00 Email: kar@kakidata.dk 2000 Frederiksberg Lørdag 12.00-16.00 Web: www.suse.dk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > - allows us to say that PostgreSQL ships with field-tested > replication in the source tree We have a winner! I think this one trumps all the rest. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200307160920 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html iD8DBQE/FVGlvJuQZxSWSsgRAhvZAJ0fqYZctnt45zTAqbL7dLajOfewGQCeKaUq 9VJkugleaEukmFsbwabNyO8= =wIZT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 02:23:21PM +0200, Kaare Rasmussen wrote: > > pro contrib/: > > You have four pro arguments, two of which are for marketing and the > other two are for lazyness :-) For what it's worth, I don't think the marketing arguments are nothing. That view was confirmed by what I heard at the OSCON BOF. > Maybe a wish for some official mention of this - and other important - gborg > project in the documentation ? That's not a bad idea, actually. The projects on gborg suffer from too little publicity. I knew nothing about the very cool PL/R until I heard about it directly from Joe. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:35:38PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > is this code really a "replacement" for rserv? There has been work on > rserv in contrib that I'm guessing was not used in the commercial > version. are we better off calling this rserv2 or something and letting > both projects stand side by side? Good point: this code branched back in the summer of 2001, and hasn't had anything to do with the rserv code since. So perhaps both should live. > as the person doing the legwork, do you see one location or the other as > a hindrance to getting the release done? Not to me, no. But since I can't commit the changes to CVS, someone else would have to do that. Mind you, last time I tried to set up a project on gborg, I couldn't get it to work after 4 hours, and gave up. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:35:38PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > > is this code really a "replacement" for rserv? There has been work on > > rserv in contrib that I'm guessing was not used in the commercial > > version. are we better off calling this rserv2 or something and letting > > both projects stand side by side? > > Good point: this code branched back in the summer of 2001, and hasn't > had anything to do with the rserv code since. So perhaps both should > live. > > > as the person doing the legwork, do you see one location or the other as > > a hindrance to getting the release done? > > Not to me, no. But since I can't commit the changes to CVS, someone > else would have to do that. Mind you, last time I tried to set up a > project on gborg, I couldn't get it to work after 4 hours, and gave > up. I'd say contrib is the natural place for it, as it's a todo item and a step towards integration. It's a feature most people can use, and if it's in /contrib it's more likely to get used than if it's on gborg.
greg@turnstep.com wrote: > > > - allows us to say that PostgreSQL ships with field-tested > > replication in the source tree > > > We have a winner! I think this one trumps all the rest. Can we say field-tested and Java in the same sentence? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:19:34PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I thought that now would be a good time to ask whether it should > live as a separate project, or whether it should be in contrib. I I have run into a number of arguments for putting the project on gborg. Unless I hear strong arguments against that option, I think I'll set up a project on gborg. Here are the arguments I've got: 1. The code as it stands is not really a full replication system, but more a toolkit. We at Liberty had a whole bunch of bespoke stuff that we used with the eRServer code in order to make it useful to us (various scripts that ran outside, for instance). That can't be released, because (a) it doesn't help anyone else and (b) it might reveal something about our internal databases (which would get me in Big Heck). 2. Building the code is a pain, because it is real sensitive to JDK versions, Ant installations, &c. As a result, the current CVS tree actually has a specific version of ant in it; I'm sure I don't have time to revisit the build scripts even if I knew what to do. So we have to ship all this ancillary code around too, and that will bloat the tarball and possibly cause a lot of additional support requests. 3. The code as it stands works with everything back to 7.2, and it'd be a shame to make people download a whole postgres tarball just to get the replication code. Arguments? None of those three address the obvious marketing benefit of having replication shipping with the main tarball, I know. I have most of a basic installation doc written, and a FAQ of gotchas and "why doesn't this work" answers. I'll be delivering that as soon as it's done to PostgresSQL, Inc; I hope in the next couple days. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew, > Arguments? None of those three address the obvious marketing benefit > of having replication shipping with the main tarball, I know. Those are pretty strong arguments ... and we can't let PostgreSQL new "marketing awareness" sway us to the point that we start making technically unfeasable decisions. So, I'm backing down ... I think despite the PR argument in favor of including eRServer as a download is seriously outweighed by Andrew's technical argument. So that we can get some PR milage out of it though, can we make sure that eRServer gets posted to GBorg about the same day as the 7.4 release? That way we can at least include eRServer in our announcement. -- -Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco
Did I miss part of a thread here? :)
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> > Arguments? None of those three address the obvious marketing benefit
> > of having replication shipping with the main tarball, I know.
>
> Those are pretty strong arguments ... and we can't let PostgreSQL new
> "marketing awareness" sway us to the point that we start making technically
> unfeasable decisions. So, I'm backing down ... I think despite the PR
> argument in favor of including eRServer as a download is seriously outweighed
> by Andrew's technical argument.
>
> So that we can get some PR milage out of it though, can we make sure that
> eRServer gets posted to GBorg about the same day as the 7.4 release? That
> way we can at least include eRServer in our announcement.
>
> --
> -Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 04:05:46PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Did I miss part of a thread here? :) I don't think so. Josh was responding to my post, id 19f22n-0007Gm-00. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 04:05:46PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > Did I miss part of a thread here? :) > > I don't think so. Josh was responding to my post, id > 19f22n-0007Gm-00. 'K, somehow I was missing whole threads, so went through archives to get caught up :)