> What part of the Slony-I replication system do 'we' (PGDG) not 'have'?
> The original design work got published and was up for discussion
> before the implementation work started, the entire development
> happened under the BSD license, the project was hosted on gborg from
> the very beginning and all .c, .h and .sql files in the entire tree
> are Copyright PGDG. The project lead is a PGDG Core team member and
> the project team consist of more people outside of Afilias then
> inside. If that isn't enough, then I would like to know what's left
> that we could announce at all?
> Please stop looking at Afilias as a 3rd party. Afilias is a member of
> the PGDG as everyone else. The problem that even people inside of this
> community can't imagine a company being just a member of this team
> doesn't mean that it is impossible.
While you have a valid point from the perspective of the community, I
think there is an issue which is legitimate here. That is that people
see the fact that Slony does not come with the PostgreSQL tarball. From
this perspective "we" do not have a "replication" solution. Like it or
not, this is a viewpoint many evaluators have. To them, this is still a
third-party add-on, even though it was developed primarily by core
members of the PostgreSQL community.
How do we combat this issue? Do we release Slony with PostgreSQL? Does
that really make sense (the general concensus seems to be "no")? Do we
release a different distribution of PostgreSQL which includes Slony? I
think that this would be a good idea, but....
Also, will it be possible to see a Win32 port of Slony at some point?
Metatron Technology Consulting
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Steve Bergman||Date: 2004-08-14 16:56:33|
|Subject: Re: Time to work on Press Release 8.0|
|Previous:||From: Chris Travers||Date: 2004-08-14 16:24:02|
|Subject: Re: add-ons and kernelization was Time to work on|