On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:14:36AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 06:26:50PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Funny, sounds like what I usually do. I welcome the assistance.
>
> Well, yes, that was my impression too. The complaint in the thread
> that started all this, as I understood it, was that there were big,
> hairy features that tended to have long discussions about them, and
> very few people among even the committers seemed to have a clear idea
> of exactly where things stood at the end of coding.
Something else that would be helpful is summarizing discussions that
don't result in code (perhaps on the developer wiki). That way if
someone wants to see the history of something they don't have to wade
through the list archives just to have some idea of what's being talked
about. This is probably especially important when the discussion results
in some design ideas/proposals but never moves forward from there.
> But I take Jim Nasby's point, that the request for monitoring isn't
> going to come. How about an alternative: _you_ delegate
> threads/features/whatever to me to watch? Would that help? (I don't
> care how we do it, so long as it would be helpful and so long as it's
> wanted.)
I'd be happy to help as well.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
