Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 12 September 2006 14:49, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > > I again will not be able to complete the release notes today as
> > > > > > promised. My next target date is Monday, August 18. Sorry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will that be in a few years, or are you traveling backwards in time? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, September 18. I will probably be done before then, but it seems
> > > > best to set a date I know I will hit.
> > >
> > > Here we go again with another developer who keeps making endless promises for
> > > vaporware patches that never show up. We've already set on-disk bit-map
> > > indexes straight on this and I think giving you special treatment sets a bad
> > > tone for the project. At this point I think we have to cut the release notes
> > > from this release... maybe they can be added back in for 8.3.
> >
> > Very good one!
>
> Yeah, it was funny, but it points a problem which is that we are
> overloading you to do the release notes thing. I agree that we should
> push individual developers to include release notes updates on the
> patches they submit. They are easier to write than the documentation
> update in any case (which as you say, not everyone submits), mainly
> because they are way shorter.
>
> (Or maybe not _push_ them to do that, but at least not forbid updating
> the release notes which AFAIK is the current policy.)
There are problems with this. First, since everyone isn't going to do
it, I still have to go through all the CVS logs, and then I have to
merge the created list to avoid duplicates. Then there is the problem
that we need consistent wording through the release notes, so again, I
have to wack around some more text. Doing it in one pass is the most
reliable, and efficient.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
