Hello everybody, After Marc Fournier commented, it is time for pgaccess.org to make a decision.
It is clear the project needs the following tools. - web site - mailing list(s) - cvs - bug tracking system It is clear, that there is a small new group with fresh desire to contribute in a dedicated way. It is clear, that pgaccess has only one meaning and this is PostgreSQL. It is clear, that the PostgreSQL core team is very supportive. It is clear, that pgaccess.org efforts can not result in anything good without a close collaboration with the PostgreSQL core team. Now, when we heard many different opinions, the question is - what is the best decision of organization. I would make the following summary, please, send your comments - SUMMARY 1] In terms of infrastructure, a separate web site, mailing list(s) and bug tracking system will increase the flexibility of the pgaccess team and will not create additional (and not very useful) burden for the PostgreSQL core team. The pgaccess is a tool - it is not an integral part of PostgreSQL and does not need day-to-day sharing. In the beginning it will be developed rather for the stable, than for the future versions of PostgreSQL. 2] It is clear that there must be one master copy of the CVS. The possibilities are two - this copy is kept with PostgreSQL or this copy is kept with pgaccess.org If the PostgreSQL core team can provide a CVS repository with similar flexibility to that it would have being based on the pgaccess.org server - I would vote for a PostgreSQL hosted CVS. This will be the naval cord between the two projects. 3] Still - the only thing that is not clear to me is - who is going to collect all patches and make one whole form them. As long as each of us works on a different thing - this should not be a big problem, but still - needs to be one person. Iavor -- www.pgaccess.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
