On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
> I really do not think the PG core project should be held hostage by an
> external and apparently not-really-maintained project. What if we
> introduce some other difference in PG10 that breaks pgAdmin3? Are we
> going to roll that change back? Are we sure that none exists already?
As a general rule, I don't agree that taking account of what will
break external projects constitutes being "held hostage". I think
that kind of hyperbole is unhelpful. How about we call it "trying not
to gratuitously break popular third-party tools"?
But in this case, I conceded the exact point that you are making here
later on in the exact same email to which you are replying, so I'm a
little mystified by the way you wrote this response.
> In short, my
> recollection is that we added them because it was easy to do at the time
> and we didn't have the foresight to realize just how hard they would
> become to get rid of and how much time they would suck up from people
> arguing about them.
I'm pretty sure we've spent more time arguing about them than it would
have taken to maintain them from now until 2030, and I don't really
understand why you're on the warpath to get rid of them. But I don't
really care about it enough to keep arguing now that I've realized
pgAdmin3 isn't going to work with PG 10 either way.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: