Re: More nuclear options

Robert,

> No need to fly off the handle there Josh. 

I was hoping that you'd take me up on it in a rash moment.


> No code, or no active code development?  

No code was the rule we discussed.  Other stuff would be a matter for 
discussion.  The idea was that pgfoundry was supposed to be confined to 
real projects and not a repository of failed ideas.

Seems there is an important
> difference that plays in here...   looking a m-SQL it has code and could be a 
> starting point for someone who was looking for that.

So are you telling me you want to be responsible for it?
  I'll grant that tips
> doesn't look like much more than an article stub... it should probably be 
> moved to the new techdocs rather than pgfoundry. 

That was what I started to do.  Unfortunately, the README is 
instrucitons for some SQL and code files which are missing.   I don't 
see any value in Techdocs for instructions that can't be followed.


> Perhaps no one knew they needed to speak up... perhaps people couldn't even 
> find them in contrib... how many people still ask if we have full text 
> indexing? contrib isn't exactly the most visible place... 
> 
> All I am saying is that it couldn't hurt to put the information out there...   
> we're not hurting for disk space and none of this stuff appears inherently 
> wrong, just outdated, but it might still prove useful for some people.   
> 

Again, it's the same question.  If *you* want to be the maintainer, I'll 
put it on pgfoundry.  Otherwise, you're asking me to be responsible for 
the code because you don't want to throw it away.

--Josh Berkus