On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by > people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get > moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by core > that have merit but don't have development interest presently; and one like > this that have gotten the some attention and that core doesn't feel would be > worth maintaining even if someone was willing to develop it. We already > have this in practice but maybe a bit more formality would help. > > I'm not seeing that having it, even if incorrect, does harm.
It causes people to waste time developing features we don't want. It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we don't think that, or I don't think it anyway. It's basically disinformation. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
