On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On 01/02/2018 11:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> If we're not going to maintain/curate it properly, I agree it's not >>>> worth keeping it around. But I'd rather see somebody put some effort >>>> into it ... >>> >>> If somebody was going to resolve to put some effort into maintaining >>> it to a high standard then it probably would have happened already. >>> The fact that it hasn't happened tells us plenty. >> >> +1, and well said. > > > O.k. what does it tell us though? Is it a resource issue? Is it a barrier of > entry issue? What does deleting it solve? What problems (and there is a very > large obvious one) are caused by deleting it? > > Right now, the TODO list is the "only" portal to "potential" things we > "might" want. If we delete it we are just creating yet another barrier of > entry to potential contribution. I think we need to consider an alternative > solution because of that. > > Thanks, > > JD > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc > > PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development. > Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org > ***** Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own. ***** > >
As a person looking to become a postgres contributor, perhaps I can offer some perspective on this. I think there is value in providing *some* starting point for new contributors in the form of concrete problems to solve. The value I hope to extract from the time spent on my first feature comes mostly from the learning experience and not from the acceptance of the feature itself. I would not be upset if my work was never accepted as long as I understand why. I expect most people picking features at random from a TODO list would have a similar outlook on their first contribution.
