Tom Lane wrote:
>"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>/contrib move to pgfoundry
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>Well pgFoundry isn't ready to have a load of code that is
>>that actively maintained put on it. It still needs to be moved to
>>its new servers.
>>
>>
>
>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. If they are not maintained then drop them.
They can always be recovered from the CVS archive.
cheers
andrew
