Greetings,
* Craig Ringer (craig@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 04:03, Nasby, Jim <nasbyj@amazon.com> wrote:
> > I'm on-board with that color of paint for the shed. (FWIW, I'm not
> > actually opposed to -extensions either; worst-case we split that list later
> > if needed.)
>
> Right. Does it matter, really? People working on these things will be well
> enough connected to -hackers and the community.
>
> Personally the only advantage I see to splitting it off -hackers is that it
> makes posts related to addins/forks/extensions/spoons/magic unicorn
> fairies/whatever more visible to that interest group.
I agree that makes sense- if what they're talking about are
forks/extensions/unicorns, but the list of topics provided previously
looked like things that the fork folks want changed in core, and
anything along those lines belongs on hackers, not on some other list.
This really seems like it's going to lead in a direction where the
various forks discuss on some other list things they want to see in core
(such as reducing the velocity of commits to core...), and then they're
going to spend a bunch of time on it and eventually propose something on
-hackers that ends up getting shot down, and I don't really think that's
going to be very satisfying for anyone.
Let's keep the discussion about changes to core on -hackers. If there's
folks who want a list to get together and discuss how to address certain
limitations and how to work around them in the extensions system or the
set of hooks that are provided, that's great, but it should be clear
that it's that and not intended to be some kind of alternative list for
discussing core changes.
Thanks,
Stephen