Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
> On 9/28/15 11:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> It has been stated pretty clearly in this thread by a number of senior
>> community people that we're not going to use a closed source system.

> GitLab OTOH is released under a MIT license, so it is an option. I don't 
> know how it compares to other suggested options, but if YUriy wants to 
> propose it it's at least a viable option.

I think a more accurate summary of what's been said is that we won't
consider putting any important functionality on proprietary platforms,
of which closed-source tools would be a subset.  The intention of the
community is that we'll be around for as long as there's a critical mass
of people interested in maintaining Postgres.  We will not be dependent
on any one company, and that's why e.g. github is out.  (A lot of smaller
open-source projects don't have the luxury of rejecting such options ...
but we do, and we will.)

Now, running gitlab on community-owned hardware would potentially be an
option, if we find gitlab attractive from a functionality standpoint.
The question I'd have about that is whether it has a real development
community, or is open-source in name only.  If github did go belly up,
would we find ourselves maintaining the gitlab code all by ourselves?
That might not be the end of the world, but it wouldn't be a good use
of community time either.

Fundamentally, we're playing the long game here.  We do not want to make
a choice of tools that we're going to regret ten years from now.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to