Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > So, when we review patches, we shouldn't be turning up our noses at
> > imperfect solutions if the solution meets needs of our users.
>
> I think our standards have gone up over the years, and properly so.
> The fact that we put in hacks some years ago doesn't mean that we
> still should.
>
> I don't really mind hacks^H^H^Hpartial solutions that are clean subsets
> of the functionality we want to have eventually. I do object to hacks
> that will create a backwards-compatibility problem when we want to do it
> right.
I absolutely agree on that. If we at some point want to have a given
feature, we need to avoid backward compatibility problems.
As for features that are independent, don't break anything, just
add-on's that can happily swim around in contrib (but stay out of the
deep water), we might want to become a bit more relaxed again.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
