D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:06:25 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
In fact, this may be the way to deprecate contrib. Start building
modules and move the contrib packages to it one at a time. That way
people using contrib have some time to switch and we can point people
to modules if they are just starting out.
Is there support for this idea? I would like to start exploring this
if so.
No. I don't want to deprecate it, I want to get rid of it, lock, stock
and barrel. If you think that we need more than renaming then we can
discuss it, but I don't want a long death, I want one that is certain
and swift.
Well, OK, but given that this is a huge public project with lots of
users expecting things to be in certain places, how fast do you think
we could make such a change. It seems to me that we are going to have
to make things look the same for some time at least otherwise we are
going to have lots of complaints. How swift is swift? To me, swift
means add the alternate functionality to the next release and remove
the old in the release after. Do you see things happening any faster?
I don't understand this at all. We are talking about directory and
package organisation here. How do you do that with transition
arrangements? I guess we could put in a symlink from contrib, but I just
don't see the point. I don't think we are under any obligation to
preserve the way we package or split packages between releases. And
doing this reorganisation now, fairly early in the release cycle, would
let us give people like packagers plenty of advance notice.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
