On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy > > >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs. > > > > > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives > > > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release. > > > > This seems to me to be nonsense. You've never maintained the > > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway > > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release. > > It is a best effort with our limited resources. > > > In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented > > documentation, not something users would read. If there's a shortcoming > > in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual. > > It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of > resources.
I think you will have to search for a long time to find anybody who actually uses it like that. I'm willing to bet that well over 95% of the people who read the TODO only read it on the website. (potentially excluding the actual patch-contributors, but those aren't included in your argument anyway) //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
