Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 6/7/09 10:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> OK, that's more or less what I thought, and what I intended to convey > >> upthread. As far as core Postgres is concerned this is a new feature, > >> and we haven't worked out all the kinks yet. > > > > Yes, I'm calling it "pg_migrator beta" in any advocacy/PR about it. > > AFAIC, until we have these sorts of issues worked out, it's still a beta. > > afaiks bruce stated he is going to remove the BETA tag from pg_migrator > soon so I guess calling it beta in the main project docs will confuse > the hell out of people(or causing them to think that it is not beta any > more). > So maybe calling it experimental(from the POV of the main project) or > something similar might still be the better solution.
This all sounds very discouraging. It is like, "Oh, my, there is a migration tool and it might have bugs. How do we prevent people from using it?" Right now nothing in the project is referring to pg_migrator except in the press release, and it is marked as beta there. How do you want to deemphasize it more than that? Why did I bother working on this if the community reaction is to try to figure out how to make people avoid using it? I am now thinking I need to my own PR for pg_migrator because obviously the community is only worried it might have a bug. Instead of testing it, looking at the code, submitting bug reports, or anything constructive, you sit around figuring out how to put a disparaging label on it! -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
