Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> On 06/05/2015 04:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> somewhere else. At least not that I can see.
>
>>
>> 4. Eliminate the EGO of saying "I have a contrib module in core"
>>>
>>
>> I've got multiple major features in core. Any ego I may have about my
>> PostgreSQL contributions is not based on pg_prewarm.
>>
>
> This was worded badly by me. This isn't about your ego, it is about the
> mysticism surrounding the idea that "they have a feature in core". It is
> really last on the list and not really important to this discussion.
>
>
>> 1. 15 years of the same argument (current source: pg_audit)
>>>
>>
>> The argument about pg_audit has little to do with contrib. It is
>> primarily about code quality, and secondarily about whether one
>> committer can go do something unliterally when a long list of other
>> committers and contributors have expressed doubts about it.
>>
>>
> The argument was about whether it should be in contrib, code quality or
> not. If contrib didn't exist and we accepted that extensions are an outside
> core thing, the argument never would have happened.

That is only the case if we also accept that all extensions are just an
amorphous mass. If some extensions are "blessed" or "vetted" or "by
default tested against HEAD by the buildfarm" or whatever, then the debate
would still happen, just with different words. And I don't think that
forestalling debate is such a worthwhile goal in itself. Some debates are
worth having.

Cheers,

Jeff