On Thu, 9 May 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > It is not important where it is - it is important (for us) to put a small
> > organization around the thing that can make collecting all patches possible.
>
> pgaccess is currently in the pgsql cvs tree, and is welcome to stay
> there. Some of us have commit privileges, and y'all may want to have
> someone else with privs also once you are organized and it is clear how
> best to proceed. If you need web resources that can be arranged too, as
> can a dedicated mailing list.
>
> gborg is another way to organize, and of course www.pgaccess.org is a
> way too. It partly depends on how you see the future of pgaccess. If it
> stays tightly coupled to pgsql, then perhaps it may as way stay
> organized with pgsql.
I was working on the assumption that PgAccess was tightly coupled to postgres
[and versions of postgres] and since Teo was busy with other things and the PG
commiters were happy to apply patches that I would be submitting patches to the
postgres CVS.
I see no reason why pgaccess needs a separate repository, I presume it can be
fetched from the postgress CVS as a single entity. Although I haven't tried
this.
BTW, I had been wondering what to call the Schema tab now that that label is
required for schemas rather than design.
--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director
---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants