Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:49:14 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date. Message-ID: <539E14DA.3030004@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <539DCCBD.7090405@FreeBSD.org> References: <201405170220.s4H2K0G0085365@freefall.freebsd.org> <538D0AAE.7090800@sorbs.net> <20140615111101.GM2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DA4F3.2060004@sorbs.net> <20140615142903.GQ2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DB9DD.3050603@FreeBSD.org> <20140615161122.GB2586@home.opsec.eu> <539DCCBD.7090405@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >>> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it >>> seems you have beaten me to it. >>> >> Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! >> >> Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? >> > > I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me > for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if > you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from > Michelle given the work she's already put into it. > I did it because I needed it ;-) - if you want to help me (this is actually the first port I had done) I'm all for that... I just wanted my email address in the ports tree for the spammers ;-) > >>>>>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? >>>>>> >>>>> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in >>>>> devel - until it changes?) >>>>> >>> pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 >>> which are all still receiving updates. >>> >> Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ? >> > > Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use > by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a > demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just > skip to the latest, is the real question. > Personally I think: databases/pgpool (3.1.x) databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x) > Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip > pgpool-II-3.2 Agreed. (effectively already done) > and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to > pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that > matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month) > expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide. > Personally - pgpool-II (3.1.6) and pgpool-II-devel (3.3.3+ - and 3.4 when it comes out) There is reason to keep the last version of pgpool-I ... but move it to pgpool-I (or pgpool-v2) and mark it as 'no further developement' (as I think that's true) > I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the > different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of > functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches, > then obviously we'd have to reconsider. > > +1 -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?539E14DA.3030004>