Thread: Need new project admin for unbundled Tcl interface libpgtcl?
It has now been over a year since the last beta release of the unbundled libpgtcl on gborg.postgresql.org. This interface seems to have gotten itself stuck part-way towards unbundling. Are the project admins still around (Brett Schwarz and Karl Lehenbauer)? From back in Nov 2002, I think the 1.4b3 code was release quality, but there wasn't much documentation. Now the code also needs to be resynchronized with fixes in the bundled libpgtcl. If the current project admins don't want it, nobody else steps forward, and the PostgreSQL Group is still in favor of unbundling this interface, I would like to take over the project. I've done some work on the code, and my own version is much further along than 1.4b3 on gborg. I have: - Rolled in the PostgreSQL-7.4 (and later) fixes; -Added new features: prepared queries, extended error codes, transaction status, extended field attributes, backend parameters, notice/warning message handlers, NULL value testing (these are also in my pgin.tcl pure-Tcl interface); - Various cleanups, fixes, finish conversion to Tcl objects; - A Makefile for the free Borland C compilerto build a DLL for Windows, which works with the latest ActiveState Tcl binary release; - A test suite usingtcltest; - Made lots of progress on the Docbook documentation. What do you think? Should the (former) admins step aside, and let me take over? Or do we give up and re-bundle it?
I don't quite understand why it has to be one way or the other. Why don't you just ask for admin/update proviledges, and get added to the project? That's what I did when Karl started the project. I believe there have already been some of the bug fixes rolled in from the PG sources, from other people. One of the problems I see is that it was asked over a year ago to separate libpgtcl from the core, and Karl did that. But people continued to update the core libpgtcl for some reason, I am not sure why. Did you base your changes off of the Gborg project or the libpgtcl that's still in the core? I would welcome your changes into the gborg, but I don't think there is any reason to create a new project or change admins at this point. Just because I don't have time now to make any updates, doesn't mean I won't later... --- L J Bayuk <ljb220@mindspring.com> wrote: > It has now been over a year since the last beta > release of the unbundled > libpgtcl on gborg.postgresql.org. This interface > seems to have gotten > itself stuck part-way towards unbundling. Are the > project admins still > around (Brett Schwarz and Karl Lehenbauer)? From > back in Nov 2002, I think > the 1.4b3 code was release quality, but there wasn't > much documentation. > Now the code also needs to be resynchronized with > fixes in the bundled > libpgtcl. > > If the current project admins don't want it, nobody > else steps forward, and > the PostgreSQL Group is still in favor of unbundling > this interface, I > would like to take over the project. I've done some > work on the code, and > my own version is much further along than 1.4b3 on > gborg. I have: > - Rolled in the PostgreSQL-7.4 (and later) > fixes; > - Added new features: prepared queries, extended > error codes, > transaction status, extended field attributes, > backend parameters, > notice/warning message handlers, NULL value > testing (these are > also in my pgin.tcl pure-Tcl interface); > - Various cleanups, fixes, finish conversion to > Tcl objects; > - A Makefile for the free Borland C compiler to > build a DLL for > Windows, which works with the latest > ActiveState Tcl binary release; > - A test suite using tcltest; > - Made lots of progress on the Docbook > documentation. > > What do you think? Should the (former) admins step > aside, and let me > take over? Or do we give up and re-bundle it? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Brett Schwarz wrote: > One of the problems I see is that it was asked over a year ago to > separate libpgtcl from the core, and Karl did that. But people continued > to update the core libpgtcl for some reason, I am not sure why. Odd, I didn't even know that one was left ... can you confirm that all changes to the -core version are in the gborg version? Or, maybe easier, are there less changes to the gborg version then to -core? Basically, let's get the two versions 're-merged', and then we can cvs delete it from the core tree ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
I'm with Brett. You're welcome to come aboard. It's in heavy use at our shop. The project could definitely use some help. There are some nice things in the gborg version, access to next generation stuff in the C library. Karl On Feb 9, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Brett Schwarz wrote: > I don't quite understand why it has to be one way or > the other. Why don't you just ask for admin/update > proviledges, and get added to the project? That's what > I did when Karl started the project. > > I believe there have already been some of the bug > fixes rolled in from the PG sources, from other > people. > > One of the problems I see is that it was asked over a > year ago to separate libpgtcl from the core, and Karl > did that. But people continued to update the core > libpgtcl for some reason, I am not sure why. > > Did you base your changes off of the Gborg project or > the libpgtcl that's still in the core? > > I would welcome your changes into the gborg, but I > don't think there is any reason to create a new > project or change admins at this point. Just because I > don't have time now to make any updates, doesn't mean > I won't later... > > --- L J Bayuk <ljb220@mindspring.com> wrote: >> It has now been over a year since the last beta >> release of the unbundled >> libpgtcl on gborg.postgresql.org. This interface >> seems to have gotten >> itself stuck part-way towards unbundling. Are the >> project admins still >> around (Brett Schwarz and Karl Lehenbauer)? From >> back in Nov 2002, I think >> the 1.4b3 code was release quality, but there wasn't >> much documentation. >> Now the code also needs to be resynchronized with >> fixes in the bundled >> libpgtcl. >> >> If the current project admins don't want it, nobody >> else steps forward, and >> the PostgreSQL Group is still in favor of unbundling >> this interface, I >> would like to take over the project. I've done some >> work on the code, and >> my own version is much further along than 1.4b3 on >> gborg. I have: >> - Rolled in the PostgreSQL-7.4 (and later) >> fixes; >> - Added new features: prepared queries, extended >> error codes, >> transaction status, extended field attributes, >> backend parameters, >> notice/warning message handlers, NULL value >> testing (these are >> also in my pgin.tcl pure-Tcl interface); >> - Various cleanups, fixes, finish conversion to >> Tcl objects; >> - A Makefile for the free Borland C compiler to >> build a DLL for >> Windows, which works with the latest >> ActiveState Tcl binary release; >> - A test suite using tcltest; >> - Made lots of progress on the Docbook >> documentation. >> >> What do you think? Should the (former) admins step >> aside, and let me >> take over? Or do we give up and re-bundle it? > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html >
I'm disappointed to see the responses to my offer to take over the Gborg project libpgtcl. It hasn't been touched in over a year; I thought the two admins were busy elsewhere and would be glad to turn it over to someone else. Guess I was wrong. I'm hearing that you want to stay in control of the project, but I'm not hearing that you plan to continue working on it any time soon. OK, then. Brett, I started with pgtcl-1.4b3 from Gborg, plus the changes Karl put into CVS in January 2003. I merged in changes from the PostgreSQL-7.4.1 libpgtcl (core), then made enough changes of my own that the diffs to either Gborg or -core versions are now quite substantial. I appreciate the offer to join your project, but would you even accept such a huge chunk of changes in one update? Would you have time to review it? Would it sit in CVS indefinitely? Karl, I'm glad you're making use of it at your shop, but that doesn't mean it is finished. Some people are uncomfortable with production use of "beta, no manual, no recent activity" projects. (Perhaps your shop skipped over PostgreSQL-7.4 and went to 7.4.1, because pgtcl-1.4b3 wouldn't build on 7.4(beta, rc, or final) without changes. My bug report at http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pgtcl/bugs/bugupdate.php?584 was ignored, but fortunately it was fixed at 7.4.1 incidental to pgtcl.) Marc, I can confirm that NOT all changes to -core version are in the Gborg version, because there have been no changes to the Gborg version since Jan 2003 and there were at least 3 bug fixes on the -core version since then. (I can't imagine why Brett thinks nobody should have been allowed to apply fixes to the core libpgtcl, given the lack of activity on the Gborg version.) The fixes I know of, which I think Tom Lane made, are: (1) fix for leak of notifier channel data on close, orcrash if freed [from me, 2003-01-07 on pgsql-interfaces]; (2) pg_lo_read/pg_lo_write binary data corruption fix [fromme, 2003-10-26 on pgsql-bugs]; (3) bad handling of negative return from lo_read in pg_lo_read [from Tom Lane,2003-10-30 on pgsql-bugs] There were also compiler warning suppression fixes for const changes in Tcl 8.4 headers. But there is a lot more new stuff in Gborg which isn't in the core. No, it's not that hard to apply the fixes to the Gborg version, but somebody would have to actually do it, and I don't see anyone else willing to do so. I know the goal was to remove libpgtcl from -core; is the PG Group satisfied with the progress of the Gborg pgtcl project toward this goal?
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > Brett, I started with pgtcl-1.4b3 from Gborg, plus the changes Karl put > into CVS in January 2003. I merged in changes from the PostgreSQL-7.4.1 > libpgtcl (core), then made enough changes of my own that the diffs to > either Gborg or -core versions are now quite substantial. I appreciate the > offer to join your project, but would you even accept such a huge chunk of > changes in one update? Would you have time to review it? Would it sit in > CVS indefinitely? Ummmm, if you were to join the project, I was under the impression it would have been with CVS privileges ... Brett? > to do so. I know the goal was to remove libpgtcl from -core; is the PG > Group satisfied with the progress of the Gborg pgtcl project toward this > goal? So far, the only thing I've seen from Brett was an offer to give you commit privileges to the GBorg tree so that you could commit updates ... Brett, did I mis-understand your note? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--- "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > > > Brett, I started with pgtcl-1.4b3 from Gborg, plus > the changes Karl put > > into CVS in January 2003. I merged in changes from > the PostgreSQL-7.4.1 > > libpgtcl (core), then made enough changes of my > own that the diffs to > > either Gborg or -core versions are now quite > substantial. I appreciate the > > offer to join your project, but would you even > accept such a huge chunk of > > changes in one update? Would you have time to > review it? Would it sit in > > CVS indefinitely? > > Ummmm, if you were to join the project, I was under > the impression it > would have been with CVS privileges ... Brett? > Yes, that's true. I have no problems with people joining the project (and I think Karl agrees with this as well), I just don't understand why it has to be all or nothing. In fact, I just added someone a few weeks ago so they could commit some changes. > > to do so. I know the goal was to remove libpgtcl > from -core; is the PG > > Group satisfied with the progress of the Gborg > pgtcl project toward this > > goal? > > So far, the only thing I've seen from Brett was an > offer to give you > commit privileges to the GBorg tree so that you > could commit updates ... > Brett, did I mis-understand your note? You understood it correctly. regards, --brett __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
I am totally confused. What is the issue here? I would like to get the gborg version moving and the version out of our core CVS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Schwarz wrote: > > --- "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > > > > > Brett, I started with pgtcl-1.4b3 from Gborg, plus > > the changes Karl put > > > into CVS in January 2003. I merged in changes from > > the PostgreSQL-7.4.1 > > > libpgtcl (core), then made enough changes of my > > own that the diffs to > > > either Gborg or -core versions are now quite > > substantial. I appreciate the > > > offer to join your project, but would you even > > accept such a huge chunk of > > > changes in one update? Would you have time to > > review it? Would it sit in > > > CVS indefinitely? > > > > Ummmm, if you were to join the project, I was under > > the impression it > > would have been with CVS privileges ... Brett? > > > > Yes, that's true. I have no problems with people > joining the project (and I think Karl agrees with this > as well), I just don't understand why it has to be all > or nothing. In fact, I just added someone a few weeks > ago so they could commit some changes. > > > > > to do so. I know the goal was to remove libpgtcl > > from -core; is the PG > > > Group satisfied with the progress of the Gborg > > pgtcl project toward this > > > goal? > > > > So far, the only thing I've seen from Brett was an > > offer to give you > > commit privileges to the GBorg tree so that you > > could commit updates ... > > Brett, did I mis-understand your note? > > You understood it correctly. > > regards, > > --brett > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > -- 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
The issue right now is that the -core and gborg versions are no longer in sync ... we're working on correcting that ... On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I am totally confused. What is the issue here? I would like to get the > gborg version moving and the version out of our core CVS. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Brett Schwarz wrote: > > > > --- "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > > > > > > > Brett, I started with pgtcl-1.4b3 from Gborg, plus > > > the changes Karl put > > > > into CVS in January 2003. I merged in changes from > > > the PostgreSQL-7.4.1 > > > > libpgtcl (core), then made enough changes of my > > > own that the diffs to > > > > either Gborg or -core versions are now quite > > > substantial. I appreciate the > > > > offer to join your project, but would you even > > > accept such a huge chunk of > > > > changes in one update? Would you have time to > > > review it? Would it sit in > > > > CVS indefinitely? > > > > > > Ummmm, if you were to join the project, I was under > > > the impression it > > > would have been with CVS privileges ... Brett? > > > > > > > Yes, that's true. I have no problems with people > > joining the project (and I think Karl agrees with this > > as well), I just don't understand why it has to be all > > or nothing. In fact, I just added someone a few weeks > > ago so they could commit some changes. > > > > > > > > to do so. I know the goal was to remove libpgtcl > > > from -core; is the PG > > > > Group satisfied with the progress of the Gborg > > > pgtcl project toward this > > > > goal? > > > > > > So far, the only thing I've seen from Brett was an > > > offer to give you > > > commit privileges to the GBorg tree so that you > > > could commit updates ... > > > Brett, did I mis-understand your note? > > > > You understood it correctly. > > > > regards, > > > > --brett > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > > > -- > 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, Pennsylvania 19073 > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > The issue right now is that the -core and gborg versions are no longer in > sync ... we're working on correcting that ... He seemed to be saying that he wanted all or nothing, but I couldn't figure out what "all" was. Glad it is moving forward, so I don't need to understand the issue. :-) -- 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, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > The issue right now is that the -core and gborg versions are no longer in > > sync ... we're working on correcting that ... > > He seemed to be saying that he wanted all or nothing, but I couldn't > figure out what "all" was. Glad it is moving forward, so I don't need > to understand the issue. :-) No, the way I understood it is that LJ got the impression that Brett wasn't willing to provide commit access to the CVS, so any patches that LJ submitted would hav to go through a review process, etc ... At least that's what *I* thought hte issue is/was and am working based on that :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > The issue right now is that the -core and gborg versions are no longer in > > > sync ... we're working on correcting that ... > > > > He seemed to be saying that he wanted all or nothing, but I couldn't > > figure out what "all" was. Glad it is moving forward, so I don't need > > to understand the issue. :-) > > No, the way I understood it is that LJ got the impression that Brett > wasn't willing to provide commit access to the CVS, so any patches that LJ > submitted would hav to go through a review process, etc ... > > At least that's what *I* thought hte issue is/was and am working based on > that :) Sorry, no. Let's start over. I offered to take over the Gborg pgtcl project because I thought nobody wanted it. It seemed stalled, having made no releases since beta3 in November 2002, no CVS updates since January 2003, and no progress on the reference manual. I assumed the project admins had moved on to other things and would be glad to turn it over. The response I got was no, they don't want to give it up, but I could join and get CVS commit rights. Not good enough, unless there are going to be releases. I'm not hearing that there will be releases. I need this interface working, and I don't want a beta- or CVS- version. I also want documentation, and I want binaries for Windows. I think the -core developers want that too, so they can be free of the core version. So what's the holdup? (No, it isn't that "the -core and gborg versions are no longer in sync" - that's a symptom, not the cause - and is someone really working on that?) I really don't want to antagonize anyone, but I think a project fork is in order. I'll put my version into a new project, and we'll see what happens.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > I offered to take over the Gborg pgtcl project because I thought nobody > wanted it. It seemed stalled, having made no releases since beta3 in > November 2002, no CVS updates since January 2003, and no progress on the > reference manual. I assumed the project admins had moved on to other > things and would be glad to turn it over. > > The response I got was no, they don't want to give it up, but I could > join and get CVS commit rights. Not good enough, unless there are going > to be releases. I'm not hearing that there will be releases. If there have been no commits to the gborg version in almost a year, what would a new release be based off of? What I'm really curious of is why the patches to -core didn't get into gborg ... IMHO, the current gborg seems to have gone 'stale' :( > I really don't want to antagonize anyone, but I think a project fork is > in order. I'll put my version into a new project, and we'll see what > happens. Well, that works too ... since I know the gborg version is not in sync with the -core version, and since I think that bringing gborg in sync with -core would be confusing at best ... if you can create the project, I can copy the current CVS files (with history) from -core to gborg ... I really don't want to lose the changes/history over the past year ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > > > I offered to take over the Gborg pgtcl project because I thought nobody > > wanted it. It seemed stalled, having made no releases since beta3 in > > November 2002, no CVS updates since January 2003, and no progress on the > > reference manual. I assumed the project admins had moved on to other > > things and would be glad to turn it over. > > > > The response I got was no, they don't want to give it up, but I could > > join and get CVS commit rights. Not good enough, unless there are going > > to be releases. I'm not hearing that there will be releases. > > If there have been no commits to the gborg version in almost a year, what > would a new release be based off of? What I'm really curious of is why > the patches to -core didn't get into gborg ... IMHO, the current gborg > seems to have gone 'stale' :( > > > I really don't want to antagonize anyone, but I think a project fork is > > in order. I'll put my version into a new project, and we'll see what > > happens. > > Well, that works too ... since I know the gborg version is not in sync > with the -core version, and since I think that bringing gborg in sync with > -core would be confusing at best ... if you can create the project, I can Why confusing? Add core changes to gborg, remove the core version, and submit patches to improve the gborg version. > copy the current CVS files (with history) from -core to gborg ... I really > don't want to lose the changes/history over the past year ... If you submit changes, there will be a release and it will start to move. Making a new project just so it is new really isn't going to add much. As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS. -- 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, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized > there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS. Which doesn't explain why the admin of the gborg project never spoke up, or applied the submitted patches ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized > > there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS. > > Which doesn't explain why the admin of the gborg project never spoke up, > or applied the submitted patches ... Oh, is that the issue? Who is the admin? I see: karl -- Admin schwarzkopf -- Admin max -- Developer Heck, make me an admin and I will apply the patches, or make him an admin. Making a new project just adds confusion. -- 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
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized
> there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS.
More to the point, the core version has gotten maintained "because it's
there". We've applied a few submitted patches (mostly ljb's it looks
like) but most of the recent patches in libpgtcl have been by-blows from
global-search-and-replace type fixes.
If there's an active gborg project to maintain libpgtcl then I've got no
problem with pushing the responsibility out. Right at the moment
though, I think that there's nobody home on the other end. The gborg
pgtcl project hasn't seen a CVS commit in more than a year. We need
to stir up some action; if that means giving ljb ownership of a fork
project, fine with me.
regards, tom lane
I have been following this thread as I have recently adopted pgintcl as an interface to write a simple windows app. This is my experience. I chose pgintcl (an lbayuk project also, IIRC) precisely because of a lack of windows binaries for libpq and libpgtcl and perceived staleness. I got errors on load from the binaries that came with pgaccess, also stale. I read something about stub-this and tcl version-that. I looked into a build environment for windows and finally said phooey. I googled my way to pgintcl, sourced it, and it just worked. L (what is that first name anyway?) gave me something I could use. As a user, my vote is always for something I can use. My $.02. Thanks, Jason C. Wells
On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 19:57, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, L J Bayuk wrote: > > > > > I offered to take over the Gborg pgtcl project because I thought nobody > > > wanted it. It seemed stalled, having made no releases since beta3 in > > > November 2002, no CVS updates since January 2003, and no progress on the > > > reference manual. I assumed the project admins had moved on to other > > > things and would be glad to turn it over. > > > > > > The response I got was no, they don't want to give it up, but I could > > > join and get CVS commit rights. Not good enough, unless there are going > > > to be releases. I'm not hearing that there will be releases. > > > > If there have been no commits to the gborg version in almost a year, what > > would a new release be based off of? What I'm really curious of is why > > the patches to -core didn't get into gborg ... IMHO, the current gborg > > seems to have gone 'stale' :( > > > > > I really don't want to antagonize anyone, but I think a project fork is > > > in order. I'll put my version into a new project, and we'll see what > > > happens. > > > > Well, that works too ... since I know the gborg version is not in sync > > with the -core version, and since I think that bringing gborg in sync with > > -core would be confusing at best ... if you can create the project, I can > > Why confusing? Add core changes to gborg, remove the core version, and > submit patches to improve the gborg version. > I agree, I am not sure why it would be confusing. There's really not been that many updates to the -core version in the past year or so.
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: >> As for why the core changes didn't make it into gborg, few realized >> there was a gborg version because there was still a version in core CVS. > > More to the point, the core version has gotten maintained "because it's > there". We've applied a few submitted patches (mostly ljb's it looks > like) but most of the recent patches in libpgtcl have been by-blows from > global-search-and-replace type fixes. > > If there's an active gborg project to maintain libpgtcl then I've got no > problem with pushing the responsibility out. Right at the moment > though, I think that there's nobody home on the other end. The gborg > pgtcl project hasn't seen a CVS commit in more than a year. We need > to stir up some action; if that means giving ljb ownership of a fork > project, fine with me. I'm not in a diplomatic mood today, so watch your toes. Fact is that the current maintainers of the gborg project have not maintained it for whatever reason in a long time. If there would have been as much interest in "keeping" the project as there is now, some fixes to -core would have been incorporated and they would probably have asked at some point to even remove the -core pieces to get rid of this syncing problem. And now that ljb has worked on this for a considerable time and asks for handing over the project, the responses aren't that there are plans, that there is work going on, that there is more to it than it looks like, the responses are pretty much what I would expect from someone who feels awkward and fears the prestige loss that happens when you are forced out of a public position. On the other hand, ljb would have done better by joining the team first (it is my understanding that this was offered instead, correct me if I'm wrong), and then asking for the handover from the position of a member later. This is more etiquette and political politeness than any hard requirement, yet not to underestimate. I conclude that the main problem here is not a technical one but rather a prestige and etiquette question. The chance to step down and leave galantly was missed, but that doesn't matter much to me. Thus I agree, give ljb ownership of a fork. From a pure technical point of view I understand that ljb has produced a merge of both versions and even worked forward from there already. If there isn't any substantial work in the pipeline of the gborg project, that we don't see yet and which to present or announce would be the right time now, I think that fork has a good chance to succeed. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Jan Wieck waxed: 8<'s > From a pure technical point of view I understand that ljb has produced > a merge of both versions and even worked forward from there already. If > there isn't any substantial work in the pipeline of the gborg project, > that we don't see yet and which to present or announce would be the > right time now, I think that fork has a good chance to succeed. Besides this thread being half-on and half-off the interfaces list, I think the only *problem* is that libpgtcl never got removed from the core. If libpgtcl were only a gborg project, then maybe this wouldn't be such a mess. Instead, it is a mess, because people were getting upset that two forks of libpgtcl (gborg and core) were not kept in sync. Now they are sync'd, so why make a third fork ? Destroy the core libpgtcl and apply the patch to the gborg version. -- Chris Maj <cmaj_hat_freedomcorpse_hot_info> Pronunciation Guide: Maj == May Fingerprint: 43D6 799C F6CF F920 6623 DC85 C8A3 CFFE F0DE C146
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > ... > -core would be confusing at best ... if you can create the project, I can > copy the current CVS files (with history) from -core to gborg ... I really > don't want to lose the changes/history over the past year ... The project was created Wednesday on Gborg, "pgtclng", but it is still empty. The actual code changes won't be lost - I have everything from 7.4.1 libpgtcl in my version now. After a beta release, I will look at your CVS to pick up post-7.4.1 changes (if any). But I wasn't thinking about file histories, and they were't going to be copied, I guess. (Gborg pgtcl didn't preserve histories either. Have other unbundled projects preserved histories?) How important is this? Is the issue change logs, file deltas, or both? I'm not a CVS expert, but I understand one needs direct filesystem access to both CVS repositories to import files with histories. Obviously I can't do that. Can you? Do you need to be added to the project for this? I haven't settled on the tree structure. The -core version puts the source files at the top, Gborg pgtcl used "generic/" (a Tcl / TEA convention), and I might use a "src/" directory. It's a minor thing, but because of the pain in moving CVS files around, I need to decide before we put files in. So first: do you need the histories transfered? If so, I won't add any files, and I'll tell your where to copy the RCS files into the new project repository. Then I'll check them out and update them with my versions. Keep in mind that we still lose the change histories from the Gborg pgtcl project, I guess. (Not the accumulated changes, just the histories.)
C. Maj wrote: > ... > > Besides this thread being half-on and half-off the > interfaces list, I think the only *problem* is that libpgtcl > never got removed from the core. If libpgtcl were only a > gborg project, then maybe this wouldn't be such a mess. > Instead, it is a mess, because people were getting upset that > two forks of libpgtcl (gborg and core) were not kept in sync. > > Now they are sync'd, so why make a third fork ? Destroy the > core libpgtcl and apply the patch to the gborg version. I had no idea they were sync'd. Look at that - all those CVS commits on the Gborg pgtcl project in the last 48 hours or so. After a year of nothing. Perhaps it was discussed in the "half-off" part of the thread. Well, this is an interesting development. I wonder what will happen next.