Hello Joshua, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > I think the point is that right now Postgres-R (just like Replicator) > keeps its own tree that incorporates the PostgreSQL code. ..as does every other patch for Postgres before possibly it lands on mainline. But that's neither good nor bad per se, IMO. > When open sourcing replicator I tried very hard to convince myself and > others that it was merely a "branch" of PostgreSQL. I lost that sale :P Well, yeah, maybe Postgres-R is going to loose that sale as well. But hey, it's not long ago since you've open sourced it. What makes you think that you've already "lost that sale"? I for example didn't find time to look at the Replicator sources up until now. However, IMO there's more to a fork than just having different source trees. When I hear of a fork, I think of something more like SQL-Ledger vs. LedgerSMB, where major disagreements play a role. Everything else is just ordinary evolution of software ;-) Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
