From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |
Date: | 2006-09-05 19:52:28 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150609051252s676821b1ub0fcf6c9f6229d2c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/5/06, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> I also agree with Andrew that pgfoundry is not a appropriate place for
> >> userlocks. They should be properly documented with a cleaned up api.
> >> I have no objection from them being removed from contrib in the short
> >> term due to the gpl issue, although I am not sure how you can
> >> copyright a function wrapper.
> >
> > Right, I see the pgfoundry project as just a backwards-compatibility
> > thing for anyone who doesn't want to change their code. I'm happy to
> > put some cleaned-up functions into core right now (ie, for 8.2) if
> > someone will do the legwork to define and implement them.
>
> hmm - that is all a nice and such - but is it really a good idea to do
> this that late in the release-cycle ?
> I think the most "natural" thing would be to replace the existing GPL'd
> userlock code with the new one and discuss the API-change one for 8.3
> and up ...
I think that's a reasonable solution, replace the existing (renamed?)
contrib with new wrappers and push core migration/documentation out to
8.3. Then we are talking about one line wrappers here, not a feature
per se...
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-09-05 20:10:36 | Re: Open items for 8.2 |
Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-09-05 19:31:51 | Re: Ding-dong, contrib is dead ... |