Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Дата
Msg-id 200505051759.22304.peter_e@gmx.net
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> I want them all in the same CVS basically to avoid any version skew
> issues.  They should always have the same branches and the same tags
> as the core, for instance; and it seems hard to keep separate
> repositories in sync that closely.

Can you have the same tags across different modules in the same CVS 
server?  If so, that would work.

> But packaging them as separately buildable tarballs that depend only
> on the installed core fileset (headers + pgxs) seems a fine idea.

If, as it currently appears, we'll end up moving in all of plphp, 
pljava, plr, then we might as well be consistent and offer all 
procedural languages, with the possible exception of plpgsql, 
exclusively as a separate tarball, to be released exactly when a server 
release is done.

Of course, there are a bunch of build infrastructure issues to be worked 
out, but let's settle on the tree structure first and then think about 
the build issues.  (But don't just move stuff and *then* think about 
the build issues.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Views, views, views! (long)