I agree with Peter's comments here. Why is the gborg thing good for
jdbc if it doesn't appear to be wanted by the core server developers?
--Barry
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
>
>> The end result of all of these discussions is that there are
>>*several* pieces to our distribution that don't need to be *in* the
>>distribution, and several of *those* that would actually benefit from
>>being moved out ...
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> After talking to Chris about how to go about doing the transition,
>>the plan is to build a Gborg project for it, make sure that Barry Lind
>>(god, I hope I got my names right here *grin*) has maintainership of the
>>project in Gborg, and then take and move the jdbc code from the pgsql
>>CVSROOT and move it into the project CVSROOT, where develoment of the JDBC
>>driver will continue ...
>>
>
> The only thing I want to fiercely protest about this is the Gborg thing.
> The JDBC driver project already has its web site (jdbc.postgresql.org) and
> its mailing list, so I don't see why gborg needs to come into the picture
> at all. Simply put the CVS root on cvs.postgresql.org, so people that are
> used to checking out the pgsql module can simply replace that with the
> name of the JDBC driver module.
>
> Quite honestly, I seriously dislike web-based software development
> infrastructures like sourceforge or gborg. The group has repeatedly
> spoken out against web-based bug tracking, web-based feature requesting,
> web-based patch submissions. And let me use this occasion to speak out
> against having to sign up to some web site before you can join
> development.
>
> Furthermore, considering that everyone that comes along can open his own
> gborg project, things will simply get lost in there. "Official" stuff
> should get more prominent treatment.
>
> Just to make sure: You're not going to put the backend code into a gborg
> project, are you?
>
>