Re: More nuclear options

Robert,

> No need to fly off the handle there Josh.

I was hoping that you'd take me up on it in a rash moment.

> No code, or no active code development?

No code was the rule we discussed. Other stuff would be a matter for
discussion. The idea was that pgfoundry was supposed to be confined to
real projects and not a repository of failed ideas.

Seems there is an important
> difference that plays in here... looking a m-SQL it has code and could be a
> starting point for someone who was looking for that.

So are you telling me you want to be responsible for it?

I'll grant that tips
> doesn't look like much more than an article stub... it should probably be
> moved to the new techdocs rather than pgfoundry.

That was what I started to do. Unfortunately, the README is
instrucitons for some SQL and code files which are missing. I don't
see any value in Techdocs for instructions that can't be followed.

> Perhaps no one knew they needed to speak up... perhaps people couldn't even
> find them in contrib... how many people still ask if we have full text
> indexing? contrib isn't exactly the most visible place...
>
> All I am saying is that it couldn't hurt to put the information out there...
> we're not hurting for disk space and none of this stuff appears inherently
> wrong, just outdated, but it might still prove useful for some people.
>

Again, it's the same question. If *you* want to be the maintainer, I'll
put it on pgfoundry. Otherwise, you're asking me to be responsible for
the code because you don't want to throw it away.

--Josh Berkus