From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jonathan Buhacoff <jonathan(at)buhacoff(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Listing Drivers in the Docs (was: "Re: Postgres.js driver - for Node.js") |
Date: | 2020-01-11 21:21:38 |
Message-ID: | 22bb915e-1d97-1734-1cf7-ee4911e07ced@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi,
For this first round, going to truncate a bit of Stephen's thoughts
(sorry Stephen) just to cover where we are at:
On 1/9/20 12:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org) wrote:
>> On 1/8/20 7:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> However, I'm not
>>> sure that there's anything wrong with having them in the wiki's list
>>> as long as they're appropriately marked as not-OSS.
>>
>> I had an offline suggestion about including a "License" column, which
>> seems like a good idea in general as we also have in the docs. And if we
>> are going to include more drivers in the docs, we'd (read "I'd" for this
>> first pass) have to pull those together anyway.
>
> I agree with having a license column (*cough* I might have also been the
> one to make the offline suggestion, so don't consider this an
> independent advocating of that ;).
I made a pass at the current Drivers list[1] and added in a link to all
of the license files. I would appreciate any verification to ensure I
captured them all correctly.
The added benefit of this URL is that we now have a direct link to the
source code for all of the projects on the page (whereas some were just
the project pages), which will help with checking if a project is
maintained or not :)
(It was also interesting to see which licenses all the drivers used. I
even learned of one I hadn't heard before, guess which one..)
Despite whether or not we should list out non-OSS drivers, I at least
broke them out for the time being. My feeling has not changed: we should
not list them on the wiki.
Anyway, from a quick scan, for the OSS licenses (knowing this is one of
those passionate topics), I don't see anything that I would not feel
comfortable linking to as part of our official documentation in this
batch (well...maybe one, but the spirit of the license is fine by me and
I would not staunchly object).
I think if we're comfortable where this is at, the next step would be to
define criteria for inclusion, which Stephen started in his previous
note. I'll let this bake for a bit and then follow up.
Thanks,
Jonathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-01-14 18:13:31 | Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-01-11 02:18:27 | Re: Transaction Management requires Autocommit |