> It seems to me that some vital components have already been set up,
> a) pgxs provides a "build environment" to make it easier to add in
> "third party extensions" without each of them having to have its
> own full PG source tree.
> b) PGFoundry is getting set up as a hopefully-decent place to host
> things that would be likely to fit into that "second tier" of
> "Extensions that ought to be ubiquitous."
> Those can also play off against each other; for an extension to become
> "ubiquitous," it is only reasonable for its developers to improve the
> builds to make them play well with pgxs.
> The way I can see this head is for there to be a significant
> population of projects on PGFoundry that, by virtue of using pgxs,
> become as easy to add in as most of the contrib items are now, and
> perhaps roughly as easy as the average BSD Port.
If this whas combined with Jan W. suggestion (community votes to create
recommendations) it would be very close to what I had in mind in the
A project could be hosted on PGFoundry where the "verify" process could
be explained, i.e.
1. your project must be pgxs compatible.
2. it must be hosted on pgFoundry.
3. it must have automatic regression testing built in (perhaps this is
part of #1).
4. documentation must follow some guidelines so that it is easy to
combine it with other docs.
5. someone must suggest it as a candidate for inclusion and give a good
6. there's a voting period and a minimum number of votes.
7. if the votes are in your favor, your project will be part of the
supported configurations and you will be asked to participate in the
This project could also host the voting mechanism and the supported
Who is behind PGFoundry? Is performance ok now :-)
This project might be perceived as a thirdparty add-on and thus, fail
its purpose. The steering committee must stand behind this officially.
Will you? What's your opinion about the suggestion?
Any ideas what the project should be named?
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Ulrich Wisser||Date: 2004-08-25 07:58:53|
|Subject: Missing FROM clause|
|Previous:||From: Hadley Willan||Date: 2004-08-25 06:18:56|
|Subject: Ordering by IN|