Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The modules proposed to be moved out aren't actively maintained now;
>> if they were we'd probably be keeping them in core.
> Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively
> maintained we don't want them either. pgFoundry is not a dumping ground
> for modules that are dying.
I didn't say they were dying --- the ones we thought were dead, we
already dropped. I was responding to Joshua's concern that they might
get enough update traffic to pose a noticeable load on the pgfoundry
server. Most of them seem to have been touched only once or twice in
the past year. That does not indicate that they don't have user
communities, though.
There was already very extensive discussion about this in this thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00302.php
and no one objected to the summary proposal I posted here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00976.php
so I'm not inclined to think that the floor is still open for debate
about what to move. It's just a matter of someone getting it done.
regards, tom lane
