Hello Joshua,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I think the point is that right now Postgres-R (just like Replicator)
> keeps its own tree that incorporates the PostgreSQL code.
..as does every other patch for Postgres before possibly it lands on
mainline. But that's neither good nor bad per se, IMO.
> When open sourcing replicator I tried very hard to convince myself and
> others that it was merely a "branch" of PostgreSQL. I lost that sale :P
Well, yeah, maybe Postgres-R is going to loose that sale as well. But
hey, it's not long ago since you've open sourced it. What makes you
think that you've already "lost that sale"? I for example didn't find
time to look at the Replicator sources up until now.
However, IMO there's more to a fork than just having different source
trees. When I hear of a fork, I think of something more like SQL-Ledger
vs. LedgerSMB, where major disagreements play a role. Everything else is
just ordinary evolution of software ;-)
Regards
Markus Wanner