Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> Make postmater and postgres options distinct so the postmaster -o
> >> option is no longer needed | PeterE | Confirmed for 8.2 | 07/20/06
> >
> >
> > We could do that, but once an item is done I don't see the point in
> > having the date and person's name. You are right that is clearly a
> > different purpose from the TODO list, and if someone wants to track
> > that, it might help things.
>
> The idea of the above is not to track when it is done. THe "confirmed"
> is to track that development is taking place and that we have confirmed
> from the developer that they think it will be done for 8.2.
Oh, "confirmed" confused me. Maybe "anticipated" or "planned" for 8.2.
> It is something that in theory would update throughout the cycle 3 or 4
> times. You could even have:
>
> Make postmater and postgres options distinct so the postmaster -o
> option is no longer needed | PeterE | Confirmed for 8.2 | 04/20/06
>
>
> Make postmater and postgres options distinct so the postmaster -o
> option is no longer needed | PeterE | Trouble encountered | 06/20/06
>
> Make postmater and postgres options distinct so the postmaster -o
> option is no longer needed | PeterE | Asks for help | 08/20/06
>
> Make postmater and postgres options distinct so the postmaster -o
> option is no longer needed | Alvaro | Confirmed | 09/20/06
>
> Notice the sequence of events. I am not saying the specific statuses are
> the way to go but it would give a simple way to keep tabs on things
> without having to create a whole new ball of yarn.
Interesting idea. If people willing to state they will complete items
for the next release, I can add this to the TODO list, and just remove
it once the item is in CVS.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
