From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 15:17:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZGSUbfy33mQdsVy7aWKnjAYXw5AakbjWEU-ppOODtHtA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Do people find it useful to move the resolved items to a separate
>>> section on the page, instead of just removing them? I'm not sure that
>>> the resolved sections are useful, compared to just using the git log.
>
>> If we have a section for resolved items, we can keep track of all
>> items. If we just delete the resolved items, we wouldn't know if it
>> was a mistake or it was intentional removal.
>
> It's not that much work to move the items rather than remove them,
> so I'd vote for keeping up the practice. It has some value in terms
> of tracking activity.
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-04-11 15:27:19 | Re: lazy detoasting |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-11 14:59:45 | Re: 'make check' fails |