Thread: patch to add Homebrew to Mac OS X downloads
I think Homebrew is established enough by now that it deserves to be mentioned.
Attachment
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > I think Homebrew is established enough by now that it deserves to be > mentioned. Given our conversation last night, I think we should firm up a listing policy before adding Homebrew to that page. I would suggest that in order to be listed in the primary package download pages, a package must a) be maintained by someone on the packagers list, and b) typically be published within the community release timetable. Any other packages or distributions, would be listed in the "3rd Party Distributions" section. That will help straighten out our listing criteria, which in turn may help with some of the other related policies we're struggling to define criteria for. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 5/22/13 7:45 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> I think Homebrew is established enough by now that it deserves to be >> mentioned. > > Given our conversation last night, I think we should firm up a listing > policy before adding Homebrew to that page. I would suggest that in > order to be listed in the primary package download pages, a package > must a) be maintained by someone on the packagers list, and b) > typically be published within the community release timetable. For practical purposes, that is me.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On 5/22/13 7:45 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> I think Homebrew is established enough by now that it deserves to be >>> mentioned. >> >> Given our conversation last night, I think we should firm up a listing >> policy before adding Homebrew to that page. I would suggest that in >> order to be listed in the primary package download pages, a package >> must a) be maintained by someone on the packagers list, and b) >> typically be published within the community release timetable. > > For practical purposes, that is me. OK, so it's a fair assumption you'll work within the community timetable and would therefore meet my suggested criteria. What do you think of the policy in general? -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 5/22/13 9:01 AM, Dave Page wrote: > OK, so it's a fair assumption you'll work within the community > timetable and would therefore meet my suggested criteria. What do you > think of the policy in general? I agree with that policy.
On 5/22/13 9:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/22/13 9:01 AM, Dave Page wrote: >> OK, so it's a fair assumption you'll work within the community >> timetable and would therefore meet my suggested criteria. What do you >> think of the policy in general? > > I agree with that policy. ping
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On 5/22/13 9:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/22/13 9:01 AM, Dave Page wrote: >>> OK, so it's a fair assumption you'll work within the community >>> timetable and would therefore meet my suggested criteria. What do you >>> think of the policy in general? >> >> I agree with that policy. > > ping Sorry, this dropped off my TODO list somehow. I've pushed it now. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company