David Fetter wrote:
> > Our distribution is not a place to experiment with things. That's
> > what separate pgfoundry projects are for. The fact we have some
> > unusual things in /contrib is not a reason to add more.
>
> If it's on track to become part of PostgreSQL, as other innovative
> features have in the past, it very much does belong there. Why
> marginalize the very thing that PostgreSQL is really good
> at--innovative new features--by putting it somewhere where few people
> will ever even see it?
>
> If there were some very, very clear language every place a person
> could download, check references, or install PostgreSQL that new
> experimental features are at pgFoundry, that might be different. As
> it is, you have to be truly dedicated even to discover that pgFoundry
> exists.
>
> Let's get full disjunctions in contrib with a good README and have
> people figure out what to do with them from there. If no one demands
> full inclusion in a couple of versions, let's take it out.
Where does it stop, then? Do we have everything in /contrib. I don't
see how this scales. When we took the code from Berkely, it had
everyone's doctoral thesis in there, and we had to remove alot of it
because it was just too messy.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +