Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree. For people who want a quick summary of the major user-facing > things changed we'll have multiple sources: (a) the announcement, (b) the > press features list, (c) the Feature-Version matrix. The Release notes > should have a *complete* list of changes.
Define "complete". > Why? Because we don't use a bug/feature tracker. So a user trying to > figure out "hey, was my issue XXX fixed so that I should upgrade?" has > *no other source* than the Release notes to look at, except CVS > history. And if we start asking sysadmins and application vendors to > read the CVS history, we're gonna simply push them towards other > DBMSes which have this information more clearly. So in other words, you don't *really* want "complete". This discussion is all about finding a suitable balance between length and detail. Simplistic pronouncements don't help us strike that balance. FWIW, I tend to agree with the folks who think Bruce trimmed too much this time. But the release notes are, and always have been, intended to boil the CVS history down to something useful by eliminating irrelevant detail. For the vast majority of people, the details that are being mentioned here are indeed irrelevant. There will be some for whom they are not. But depending on the question, almost any detail might not be irrelevant, and at that point you have to be prepared to go check the archives. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster