On 12/09/2013 05:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Would anyone concerned like to try pull requests as a way to try
> things out from non-core developers like myself?  I've been working on
> a few things in the altperl tools, and may wind into other parts of
> the system.
>

We've received and merged pull requests in the past.  Sometimes we have 
exchanged github pull requests as a way of exchanging patches on WIP 
branches.

Slony doesn't have a github presence, but the core developers all have 
the slony1-engine repository cloned under our accounts.   A pull request 
isn't going to be rejected on the basis of it being a pull request, but 
there is a risk of it being forgotten about.

The time consuming part (for me) is actually testing the patches, 
particularly with the altperl stuff.


> By the way, would there be a lot of objections to making a
> slon_tools.json as an alternative to slon_tools.conf, which is a chunk
> of Perl code?
>


My vote would be to only support one config file format so if we moved 
to JSON we should drop support for the perl based .conf but provide a 
converter.  Dropping support for the old .conf format might raise more 
objections.





> Cheers,
> David.
>