> 
> What I'm pointing out is that that's the wrong way to think about it.   100% 
> of deficiencies with pgFoundry are curable by an application of sysadmin 
> time. If the Slony-I team is going to look at putting in a bunch of sysadmin 
> time to provide a better-than-pgFoundry platform, 

Uhmmm you are not comparing apples here.

PgFoundry is a multi-project site, Slony is a single project. Setting 
them up for their own project is about 2 hours worth of work and that is 
if I am being lazy about it. Setting up Pgfoundry or even working on 
PgFoundry is much more of an investment.

PgFoundry has limitations that the Slony project wouldn't have by having 
their own server as well.

> then doing it *only* for 
> Slony is more-or-less an announcement of separation from www.postgresql.org.  
> As in, "Slony deserves better but we don't care about the rest of 
> PostgreSQL."

JoshB, that is highly unfair. Slony is not saying that in the least. 
Heck Slony doesn't even have a postgresql.org website. They host their 
own domain: slony.info. There is not one inch of validity in that argument.


> FWIW, regarding the proprietary fork of GForge, GForge Inc. would be more than 
> happy to provide us a free perpetual license including migration support.  If 
> using non-OSS isn't intolerable to people, I'm happy to see if the new 
> version cures enough of the ills which have made Gforge-GPL so 
> high-maintenance.

That is a bucket of worms you don't want to open. The moment the project 
allows Non-OSS software as part of its infrastructure you open up 
arguments about many, many non-oss problems that exist under the surface.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake





-- 

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/