On 11/10/2010 06:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler"<david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> We already use some contrib stuff in the regression tests. (It really is time we stopped calling it contrib.)
>> Call them "core extensions". Works well considering Dimitri's work, which explicitly makes them extensions. So maybe
changethe directory name to "extensions" or "ext"?
> We've been calling it "contrib" for a dozen years, so that name is
> pretty well baked in by now. IMO renaming it is pointless and will
> accomplish little beyond creating confusion and making back-patches
> harder.
The current name causes constant confusion. It's a significant misnomer,
and leads people to distrust the code. There might be reasons not to
change, but you should at least recognize why the suggestion is being made.
> (And no, don't you dare breathe a word about git making that
> all automagically better. I have enough back-patching experience with
> git by now to be unimpressed; in fact, I notice that its rename-tracking
> feature falls over entirely when trying to back-patch further than 8.3.
> Apparently there's some hardwired limit on the number of files it can
> cope with.)
That's very sad. Did you file a bug?
cheers
andrew