Re: Adding PGInstaller to the Downloads section

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:13 PM Umair Shahid <umair(dot)shahid(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 1:20 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/8/18 9:11 AM, Umair Shahid wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi. Any updates on this?
>>> >
>>> > If there is specific feedback on how to make this patch better, please
>>> > let me know. Thanks!
>>> We're sorry this is taking some time to get to - with the major release
>>> and some other larger pgweb projects, in addition to some of the
>>> discussion on how to set this up, we have not been able to prioritize
>>> it. We will get to this in the weeks after the PG11 launch.
>>>
>>> Our plan is to focus on doing some restructuring on the downloads page -
>>> which there appears to be consensus - before adding additional
>>> installers. Getting this done will allow us to add the installers
>>> shortly, if not immediately, after.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for the explanation Jonathan, though I am not sure I quite get
>> it. The Downloads page needs restructuring, which apparently needs to be
>> done regardless of whether Postgres Installer is listed there. I don't
>> understand why Postgres Installer should be held up because of it.
>>
>> We moved quickly to address all concerns raised in the first round. It
>> sends a rather discouraging message from the community if I find out about
>> this decision more than a month after I sent the revised patch, and that
>> too after repeated reminders.
>>
>> I believe this puts Postgres Installer at a disadvantage, and without
>> good reason. I would urge you to kindly reconsider. Thanks!
>>
>>
>
> Hi!
>
> It's not about putting any of the installers at an advantage or at a
> disadvantage. It is whether we put our *users* at an advantage or a
> disadvantage, and the consensus on that is pretty clear -- we are not doing
> our users any service by having a whole bunch of different installers on
> the same page without a clear and working structure. And yes, adding more
> options without structure and clearness to the end user on which should be
> used for what, will be of negative value. What we have now does not
> "scale", and piling more on it just makes it work.
>
> Thus, we need to work on that structure first. Unfortunately, there seems
> to be a distinct lack of people willing to work on *that* part, so it takes
> longer.
>

Thank you Magnus. I am happy to volunteer to work on this, just need
guidance on what needs to be done. Do we have a structure finalized? I saw
some suggestions, but didn't see consensus.

>
> It is definitely true that you have worked quickly to address the problems
> that were there with the patch initially, and that is definitely
> appreciated. But just like with PostgreSQL itself, that's no guarantee that
> it will get in.
>
> It's just like the main PostgreSQL sourcecode -- we don't apply patches
> even though the author updates them quickly based on comments if it's
> determined that they are counterproductive to the bigger goal of the
> product. It's the same here, just for the website.
>
> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
>

--
Umair Shahid
Head of Marketing & Products
2ndQuadrant - The team of diligent PostgreSQL experts
https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/