Cédric Villemain <cedric.villemain at dalibo.com> writes:
> Le Friday 07 March 2008, Christopher Browne a écrit :
>> Glyn Astill <glynastill at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> >> Slony release when main devs think it is time to do, and as you
>> >> said,
>> >> perltools are not maintain by core-dev.
>> >> I find them usefull for my first approach of slony and wish them to
>> >> keep
>> >> up-to-date, or *at least* to be sync with a specific release. So,
>> >> looking at
>> >> the slony 'roadmap', perhaps it can be better to push tools scripts
>> >> to
>> >> another place : a pgfoundry or a slony-tools-1.2.X.tar.
>> >> Then, it let 'mature users' get the core, and other users get the
>> >> contrib-tools wich are *sync* and released with slony versions.
>> >>
>> >> I prefer have to wget slony-1.2.13, slony-doc-1.2.13,
>> >> slony-tools-1.2.13
>> >> archives, but be sure they work all together. Than getting one
>> >> package with
>> >> doc from 1.2.12, tools between 1.1 and 1.2.12 and core from 1.2.13.
>> >>
>> >> It can consolidate them by releasing each part singly (even if at
>> >> the same
>> >> time).
>> >>
>> >> Views ?
>> >
>> > I've never used the perl tools, partially out of laziness and
>> > partially out of not seeing the need. Instead I just write little
>> > slonik scripts. Do they really save much time?
>>
>> The original point of the "altperl" scripts was as something of a
>> crutch for people that were having a hard time wrapping their heads
>> around the slonik language.
>>
>> Over time, some of Afilias' staff has progressed from valuing the
>> altperl scripts to thinking them pointless because "slonik isn't that
>> hard to write."  (I'm certainly in that camp, but I don't consider
>> myself terribly representative since I have written quite a lot of
>> code that generates slonik code! :-))
>
>
> I agree with the altperl tools need. 
>
> What about removing the tools from the main package (all tools, not only the 
> perl) and putting them in a dedicated package ?

Some of the tools are forcibly necessary, to the point that they are
included in regression tests.

THOSE tools would need to stay in with the engine.

If we took everything possible out, which seems a good idea, that
would require the tools left out to either find maintainers, or die
off.

> I explain: what about the slony1.2.14 , slony2.0 ? the docs are going to be 
> *fully* updated ? the tools too ? 

I have quite a lot of updates to docs between the branches; the things
that have changed in 2.0 are documented.
-- 
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://linuxfinances.info/info/sap.html
"The  problem might  possibly be  to do  with the  fact that  asm code
written for the x86 environment  is, on other platforms, about as much
use  as  a   pork  pie  at  a  Jewish   wedding."-  Andrew  Gierth  in
comp.unix.programmer