One key point to note here is Joshua already saying they wish, like
plPerl, to continue maintaining the "core code" outside of the core
distribution ... the way I read that is they just want to be 'in core' to
piggy back on the distribution, not to make development/maintenance any
easier ...
> It's *possible* to do it. Whether it's a net savings of effort is
> questionable. For instance, I've had to hack plperl and plpgsql
> over the past couple days to support OUT parameters, and the only
> reason I didn't have to hack the other two standard PLs is that they
> are a few features shy of a load already. I'm pretty sure pl/r and
> pl/java will need changes to support this feature too. If they were in
> core CVS then I'd consider it part of my responsibility to fix 'em
But, why should it be your responsibility to fix 'em?
> ... but they aren't, so it isn't my problem, so it falls on Joe and
> Thomas to get up to speed on what I've been doing and do likewise.
> Is that really a win?
Is it really a win that the only person 'up to speed' that can fix them is
you? Seems a load that will grow heavier as more PLs (if more PLs) come
online ...
Also, since plPerlNG is maintained on PgFoundry, are the changes you are
making to core getting migrated back to the main project itself?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
