Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426EE9FB672 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:10:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80781-08 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:10:39 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from servata.com (ip-216-152-249-241.servata.com [216.152.249.241]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5BBC9FB671 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:10:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from [209.162.219.253] (helo=dogma.v10.wvs) by servata.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.50) id 1HACnq-0002jY-UY; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:10:43 -0800 Subject: Re: ruby-postgres module needs work, maintainer From: Jeff Davis To: Bruce Momjian Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <200701252018.l0PKIhd15596@momjian.us> References: <200701252018.l0PKIhd15596@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:10:45 -0800 Message-Id: <1169763045.20694.147.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/39 X-Sequence-Number: 6417 On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 15:18 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > ruby-postgres != plruby > > Oops, sorry. I got confused. I also have not heard from the > ruby-postgres guy, but as a community we are less likely to have heard > from him because interfaces are more independent. > I finally did reach the ruby-postgres guy. He said he would incorporate my patches. I'd like a real release (that becomes a gem), because the current ruby- postgres release is not sufficient (in a number of ways), and I got at least one response from someone who literally skipped PostgreSQL support in their app because of it: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/450c15cb3848129b I expect there will be more patches also. Hopefully we can get this up to speed. I've been informed that the Ruby community's gem releases are heavily dependent on rubyforge. Without involvement of the rubyforge ruby- postgres project, releases would have to be under a different name (which would mean changing client code -- not desirable). This is my understanding, anyway. Regards, Jeff Davis