On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 19:50 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> I would say no to forks, but yes to alternate distros.
>> > Where does Mammoth fall as it is Open Source?
>> Is it a fork, or an add-on like Slony? If the latter, I'd say yes, it
>> should be included as it's clearly centered around 'pure' PostgreSQL.
>> If the former, then, well, no.
> Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. Mammoth is pure
> PostgreSQL with Replication added in (meaning the only thing we add is
Meaning it's not pure PostgreSQL anymore :-p
>> I'm just one opinion though - others (including you) may disagree.
> I have never been known to keep my opinion to myself :P. I was more
> looking at it from the Open Source / Not Open Source perspective.
The way you asked it sounded like you thought it was my sole decision
- I know you didn't, but others might not.
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: webmaster||Date: 2009-08-13 14:00:01|
|Subject: PostgreSQL moderation report: 2009-8-13|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2009-08-10 20:02:42|
|Subject: Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff)..|