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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
