On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > What could be also great is to move the project directly into github to > facilitate its maintenance and development. No argument from me there, especially as I have my own fork in github, but that's up to the current maintainers. >> Granted, a nice thing about integrating with core is we'd probably >> have more of an early warning when reshuffling of PG breaks pg_reorg >> (e.g. the recent splitting of the htup headers), but such changes have >> been quick and easy to fix so far. > > Yes, that is also why I am proposing to integrate it into core. Its > maintenance pace would be faster and easier than it is now in pgfoundry. If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier" development, well I don't really buy that. Yes, there would presumably be more eyeballs on the project, but you could make the same argument about any auxiliary Postgres project which wants more attention, and we can't have everything in core. And I fail to see how being in-core makes development "easier"; I think everyone here would agree that the bar to commit things to core is pretty darn high. If you're concerned about the [lack of] development on pg_reorg, there are plenty of things to fix without moving the project. I recently posted an "issues roundup" to the reorg list, if you are interested in pitching in. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
