>>> You've completely misunderstood my point. If we do it that way then the
>>> TODO list exists only upon sufferance of the wiki, which is not the true
>>> power structure around here, even if you would wish it otherwise.
>> I do not wish anything but for the information to be central and easy to
>> find. Let's stay on task shall we. I find it much more productive. I
>> submitted a patch. You don't like the patch. Fine. Let's come up with a
>> better one.
> FWIW, I'm with Tom on this - it's fine to present a link to the wiki (it
> really should be there, it's something we've missed), but the wiki is
> *not* a replacement for the TODO list. At least not yet. (it might be at
> some time in the future, but that's a completely different discussion)
Well I am not against Tom on this. There seems to be this attachment to
the idea that I removed a link to the TODO list. I already said I would
put it back. The link *is* redundant, but that's fine.
> The same goes for the link on the frontpage (per your other patch), I
> think it's better if it goes into the developer section, or possibly
> directly to the TODO list, and not to the Wiki.
I disagree strongly with this one. The point of the change to the front
page is to get everyone as much information as they need with one entry
It isn't about replacing the TODO list, it in fact has nothing to do
with the TODO list.
If I go to the TODO list, how do I know who is working on a feature?
If I go to the TODO list, how do I know the status of a feature?
I don't. The WIKI gives us that and gives us the TODO list to boot.
>> If I click on Roadmap which happens to be under developers, my patch
>> removes the link to the TODO to the page that is the WIKI, which
>> contains more information than your the current roadmap page.
>> So, I can put the link back, which I already suggested.
> I think that's the best - link to both, with a description of what is
>> I could, also remove roadmap which in general seems to be a redundant
>> category and thus allow for less links in general, as the roadmap is
>> basically a regurgitation of the /developer page anyway.
> A general change there might not be a bad idea. Though I like having the
> Roadmap on it's own page - perhaps we should get rid of all those links
> on the first page instead?
The problem with roadmap on its own page is that it exists to give a
warm and fuzzy about possibly having a roadmap which we don't. At all.
It is a bogus link, even with the original page and it only contains
> What might make more sense is to have a paragraph about "the postgresql
> development model", in how we deal with patches and such in our project.
> (I'm volounteering your time to write this, of course :-P)
I would agree with this, including information on a roadmap etc..
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2007-02-27 16:47:10|
|Subject: Re: Old SoC page|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2007-02-27 15:35:23|
|Subject: Re: Old SoC page|