| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | sakamoto <dsakamoto(at)lolloo(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_reorg in core? |
| Date: | 2012-09-22 01:02:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5Vs-wTLmKCJfwozc52nv=EswRApG5-+ESpH+AeUWP_yfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
If the present project is having a tough time doing enhancements, I should
think it mighty questionable to try to draw it into core, that presses it
towards a group of already very busy developers.
On the other hand, if the present development efforts can be made more
public, by having them take place in a more public repository, that at
least has potential to let others in the community see and participate.
There are no guarantees, but privacy is liable to hurt.
I wouldn't expect any sudden huge influx of developers, but a steady
visible stream of development effort would be mighty useful to a "merge
into core" argument.
A *lot* of projects are a lot like this. On the Slony project, we have
tried hard to maintain this sort of visibility. Steve Singer, Jan Wieck
and I do our individual efforts on git repos visible at GitHub to ensure
ongoing efforts aren't invisible inside a corporate repo. It hasn't led to
any massive of extra developers, but I am always grateful to see Peter
Eisentraut's bug reports.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sakamoto | 2012-09-22 02:01:01 | Re: pg_reorg in core? |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-09-22 00:22:25 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |