On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 08:01:04AM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >>> This means that there is a huge rush of new code in pgAdmin's
> >>> development cycle, right at the time when we should be testing - making
> >>> the release process more and more rushed as each release of PostgreSQL
> >>> gets more efficient and adds more and more new features.
> >> this is indeed an issue - but there is nothing that says that pgadminIII
> >> has to support all the new features of a backend the they it get
> >> released. pgadmin is decoupled from the min development cycle anyway so
> >> adding support for a new features a few months later sounds not too much
> >> an issue.
> > 
> > No it's not decoupled; it runs almost exactly in sync. Our most popular
> > platform ships with pgAdmin as standard because thats what the users of
> > that platform expect. Not shipping with pgAdmin (or a functionally
> > complete one) would be like shipping SQL Server without Enterprise Manager.
> Interesting ... so if you have a new feature (or a number of them) -
> that is not directly depending on some sort of new backend feature - in
> pgadmin you "delay" it until the next postgresql mjor release ?



> > I'm not specifically talking about complex patches (nor am I talking at
> > all about bug tracking) - there are a variety of patches in the queue,
> > of varying complexity. Some have been there for months, and worse, some
> > of them recieved little or no feedback when submitted leaving the
> > authors completely in the dark about whether their work will be
> > included, whether further changes are required, or whether they should
> > continue with additional enhancements.
> that one I agree with - heck even people very close to the project are
> sometimes unclear about the status of this patch or that patch.
> Part of that could probably be solved by the simple tracker you are
> proposing - another way might be to promote more usage of the developer
> wiki.

The advantage of a "proper system" would be that it'd be consistent. Using
the wiki could get very unstructured (unstructured being a *feature* of a
wiki). A specialised system will be able to enforce how things look and are
worked with, and makes the *use* of the system easier. Using the wiki makes
installing it easier, since it's already there, at the cost of usage.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to