Greetings,
* Nasby, Jim (nasbyj@amazon.com) wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2019-07-31 00:43:11 +0000, Nasby, Jim wrote:
> >> My concern about calling this -extensions is that it’s really meant for people that are at least at the level of C
extensions(and probably only those making use of hooks). That’s a relatively small number of extensions, even if they
aresome of the most important extensions.
> >
> > My concern with this proposed list is that I'm not clear what is gained
> > by having it separate. If it's effectively mainly about how to best
> > survive being a fork, I don't see why pg.o should host it. If it's
> > mainly about making postgres more extensible, I don't think it's good to
> > have this discussion separate from -hackers, that'll just lead to
> > proposing changes that won't fly (or all more senior hackers need to
> > subscribe).
>
> Fair points, and I have pondered the idea of just doing a google group or something similar. However, I’d still
preferto see this on pg.o because I’d rather see us expanding the definition of community rather than contracting it.
Butif folks would rather pg.o not host this, that’s OK.
Uh, status quo is *not* "contracting" the community, by definition, it's
status quo.
> In either case, any concrete proposals, etc would certainly get moved over to -hackers. I don’t think any of us are
tryingto hide anything here, just reduce the (already enormous) volume of -hackers.
By having proposals discussed somewhere other than hackers, only to have
a bunch of discussion that the core hackers have to read through at some
later point, or be on that list for? Doesn't sound particularly ideal
to me.
If we're talking about changes to core, they should be discussed on
-hackers, not on some other list..
Thanks,
Stephen