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.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: modules at 2008-04-03 13:54:11 from Greg Sabino Mullane

Responses

• Re: modules at 2008-04-03 15:33:05 from Tom Dunstan
• Re: modules at 2008-04-03 16:00:41 from Peter Eisentraut

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