Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely

On 06/04/2015 11:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think it's because there are some things we want to include in the
>>> core distribution without baking them irrevocably into the server.
>>
>> I have mentioned before isn't really what this discussion is about. Stephen
>> Frost and I even went through the entire list of modules of what should and
>> should not be included.
>>
>>> Which, IMV, is 100% reasonable.
>>
>> Nobody is arguing with that.
>
> Well then I am confused.

My argument was (after some preliminary discussion):

1. Review contrib
2. All modules that are "core worthy" install by default
3. Push all other contrib out into the wild

Possibly:

1. Have a contrib project that sat outside of core
2. Push all contrib or some contrib to pgxn (or some other place)

Because:

1. Decrease in code maintenance for core
2. Removal of the idea that contrib is a holding queue for not quite up
to snuff code
3. Most extensions don't need to follow the same development pattern
that core does
4. Eliminate the EGO of saying "I have a contrib module in core"

Derived from:

1. 15 years of the same argument (current source: pg_audit)
2. Helping reduce overall resource need to manage contrib
3. And now (Nasby's excellent argument)

I am not trying to throw a wrench in things. I am trying to help
streamline them. A lot of the arguments presented just don't hold water
(eating your own dogfood) because we aren't stopping anyone from doing
that testing. Whether or not the source (whatever it may be) is in
-contrib doesn't prevent that testing.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.