Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:31:31 +0200
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA35839@algol.sollentuna.se>
In-Reply-To: <453F729E.7040101@commandprompt.com>
Thread-Topic: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Thread-Index: Acb4QKqMR6LKAKlqTEa0MMvegmvjwgAAUqxQ
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>, "Cesar Suga" <sartre@gmail.com>
Cc: "Steve Atkins" <steve@blighty.com>,
	"PostgreSQL-documentation" <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

> > I also wrote Bruce about that.
> >=20
> > It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions=20
> > (rather than they doing so by other vehicles) you will=20
> always happen=20
> > to be an 'updater' to the docs if they change their product=20
> lines, if=20
> > they change their business model, if and if.
>=20
> That is no different than the open source offerings. We have=20
> had several open source offerings that have died over the=20
> years. Replicator, for example has always been Replicator and=20
> has been around longer than any of the current replication solutions.

I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
can be more easily updated. And that can contain both free and non-free
projects, under clear headlines showing the difference.

The documentation is about PostgreSQL, not about third-party products,
be they free or commercial. Our *website*, however, should give guidance
on which specific products we (as a community) know are stable and
usable along with PostgreSQL (as we do today under downloads, but could
very well do based on specific uses like replication as well)

//Magnus