| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Creation of wiki page for open items of v11 |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 15:54:33 |
| Message-ID: | 19700.1523462073@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What *does* take time is adding a link to the commit, so I'd happily
>> drop that step. As Peter says, you can usually look in the commit
>> log if you care.
> The trouble is that sometimes it's not very obvious which commit log
> entry relates to which open item.
Sure, but is annotating the wiki page that way worth the trouble?
If the alternative is that committers refuse to update the wiki page
at all, or decide to remove entries rather than move-and-add-a-link,
we're not coming out ahead.
I'm not particularly wedded to the above idea; I'm just proposing it
as a compromise solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-11 16:02:31 | Re: WARNING in parallel index creation. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-11 15:33:22 | Re: lazy detoasting |