On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not
>>>> worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort
>>>> into it ...
>>>
>>> If somebody was going to resolve to put some effort into maintaining
>>> it to a high standard then it probably would have happened already.
>>> The fact that it hasn't happened tells us plenty.
>>
>> +1, and well said.
>
>
> O.k. what does it tell us though? Is it a resource issue? Is it a barrier of
> entry issue? What does deleting it solve? What problems (and there is a very
> large obvious one) are caused by deleting it?
>
> Right now, the TODO list is the "only" portal to "potential" things we
> "might" want. If we delete it we are just creating yet another barrier of
> entry to potential contribution. I think we need to consider an alternative
> solution because of that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JD
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
>
> PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
> Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
> ***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. *****
>
>
As a person looking to become a postgres contributor, perhaps I can
offer some perspective on this. I think there is value in providing
*some* starting point for new contributors in the form of concrete
problems to solve. The value I hope to extract from the time spent on
my first feature comes mostly from the learning experience and not
from the acceptance of the feature itself. I would not be upset if my
work was never accepted as long as I understand why. I expect most
people picking features at random from a TODO list would have a
similar outlook on their first contribution.