Starting a new thread with an accurate name to see if we can't get
somewhere with this topic.

* Pavel Stehule ( wrote:
> 2016-10-08 23:46 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <>:
> > On 10/3/16 3:18 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> I am feeling consensus on removing source of PL from \dt+. There is
> >> partial consensus on saving this field (renamed) for C and internal
> >> language. I am not sure about consensus about \sf enhancing.
> >
> > FWIW, I'm completely in favor of ditching PL source code. I'm neutral on C
> > and internal.
> here is a patch

As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather
some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source
code column.

In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it
looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", to

  Peter:    -1
  Robert:   -0
  Michael:  +0
  Alvaro:   +1
  Jim:      +1
  Pavel:    +1
  Rushabh:  +1
  Stephen:  +1
  Tom:      +1

There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here.

In short, I believe Robert's willing to concede to the majority (see:, but
we have yet to hear if Peter's stance has changed on this since his July
posts (see: and
that's a remaining full -1 vote.

Apologies if I got this wrong or mis-represented anyone, just trying to
drive towards a consensus on this, so we can move on.  Please speak up
if you feel this was an incorrect assessment of your position.

Full original thread is here:



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to