Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> First, I *really* wish we'd call it something else. Contrib conveys
>> "unsupported" to people.
> And that's exactly what it is supposed to mean. We say, these modules
> do not necessarily meet our standards with regard to code quality,
> portability, user interfaces, internationalization, documentation, etc.
> There is certainly a lot of good software in contrib and one could in
> individual cases consider moving them out of there, but contrib is what
> it is.
Which is as it should be, I think. Contrib is essentially the "not
quite ready for prime time" area. If it were 100% up to speed then
it'd be in the core backend already ... while if we required it to be
100% in advance, then it'd not have gotten out there in the first place.
The real issue seems to be that we have a disconnect between what is
presently in contrib and what is on gborg or pgfoundry. There are
certainly many contrib modules that are only there on seniority: if
they were submitted today then they'd have gotten put on pgfoundry.
But I'm not sure that there's much value in an enforced cleanup.
regards, tom lane