> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> I disagree on _deadcode. While the code is rotted, it does implement
> >> some full functions that have no other history, like verion.c for
> >> versioning and xfunc for expensive functions. Yanking them means we can
> >> never know what they did.
> > even 'yanked' code is still in the cvs repository ...
> Precisely. Seems to me we ought to think about our code maintenance
> methods with knowledge that back versions will be available from CVS.
> Keeping stuff in the current tree has some advantages if it's stuff
> you think you might want again in the near term, but I think it's
> the wrong way to deal with stuff that we're only keeping for historical
> purposes. For example, if I wanted to try to understand the xfunc
> code, I'd really have to go back to the last version where it worked;
> the partially-patched files sitting in _deadcode would most likely be
> more confusing than helpful...
Personally, I am willing to yank it all now. I think we understand the
code base well enough that someone who knows the code can go through and
quickly identify the 90% of NOT_USED that is just junk and remove it.
Tom Lane, you are the only person I know who can do this. Sorry.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Vince Vielhaber||Date: 2000-02-01 03:30:34|
|Subject: RE: [HACKERS] reduce pg_hba.conf restrictions ...|
|Previous:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2000-02-01 03:24:25|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql|