Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> At any rate, that's a bit blue sky right now. I haven't seen any
>> disagreement with our kissing "contrib" goodbye as a name, so let's work
>> on that. Unfortunately, that's going to involve a bit of pain,
> Yes, I'm not sure I see the point of it. It's got a bad name, but changing
> it is just putting lipstick on a pig. End users don't know, and don't care,
> about contrib. Sysadmins and casual DBAs only care what they can "yum install".
> That only leaves packagers and hard-core developers, both of whom already
> know how contrib works.
If this were at all true we would not not have seen the complaints from
people along the lines of "My ISP won't install contrib". But we have,
and quite a number of times. We have concrete evidence that calling it
contrib actually works against us.
It's also worth pointing out that WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE.
Sometimes I get rather frustrated by our habit of turning time into a
circle and running Groundhog Day.
In response to
- Re: modules at 2008-04-03 13:54:11 from Greg Sabino Mullane
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Csaba Nagy||Date: 2008-04-03 14:57:53|
|Subject: Re: COPY Transform support|
|Previous:||From: Dawid Kuroczko||Date: 2008-04-03 14:49:21|
|Subject: Re: psql \G command -- send query and output using extended format|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Mark Mielke||Date: 2008-04-03 15:32:37|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] SHA1 on postgres 8.3|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-03 14:33:56|
|Subject: Re: is it helpful for the optimiser/planner to add LIMIT 1 |