Comment 5 for bug 1672346

Chris, thanks for the context, especially the other bug. Now that I understand that that file is all views, I can see the logic in not creating an upgrade script, but we do need some other mechanism then to keep folks at least aware of changes. This would have similarities to the latent plans to improve in-DB function changes by reapplying those en masse at upgrade time (or whenever needed).

I agree with the consensus on the other bug that it doesn't make sense to half-support (and half-enable via the IDL) these views. We should put some heads together (maybe at the Hackfest?), and if some reports can be fully "de-PINESed", then let's enable those outright, but if others cannot, let's provide those fully separate and disabled OOTB. That's my initial take, anyway.

Finally, being solely DB views, and being already in an odd state, I think straightening this out could still come pre-RC if there is energy behind it.