Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date: 2004-04-21 19:24:32
Message-ID: 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889FAF7@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
> Sent: 21 April 2004 19:16
> To: Jan Wieck
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for
> replication solutions
>
> Hello,
>
> My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed
> entirely. Just have a contrib.txt that says all contrib
> modules are at pgfoundry or whatever.

Couldn't agree more.

Regards, Dave.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-04-21 19:32:22 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2004-04-21 19:15:55 FW: Timezone library