On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by
> people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get
> moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by core
> that have merit but don't have development interest presently; and one like
> this that have gotten the some attention and that core doesn't feel would be
> worth maintaining even if someone was willing to develop it. We already
> have this in practice but maybe a bit more formality would help.
>
> I'm not seeing that having it, even if incorrect, does harm.
It causes people to waste time developing features we don't want.
It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we
don't think that, or I don't think it anyway.
It's basically disinformation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company