Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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
