Re: Core Extensions relocation

Greg,

> I'm not attached to the name, which I just pulled out of the air for
> the
> documentation. Could just as easily call them built-in modules or
> extensions. If the objection is that "extensions" isn't technically
> correct for auto-explain, you might call them core add-ons instead.
> My
> thinking was that the one exception didn't make it worth the trouble
> to
> introduce a new term altogether here. There's already too many terms
> used for talking about this sort of thing, the confusion from using a
> word other than "extensions" seemed larger than the confusion sown by
> auto-explain not fitting perfectly.

Well, I do think it should be *something* Extensions. But Core Extensions implies that the other stuff is just random code, and makes the user wonder why it's included at all. If we're going to rename some of the extensions, then we really need to rename them all or we look like those are being depreciated.

Maybe:

Core Management Extensions
Core Development Extensions
Additional Database Tools
Code Examples
Legacy Modules

I think that covers everything we have in contrib.

Given discussion, is there any point in reporting on the actual patch yet?

--Josh Berkus