Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: > o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status > > - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: > o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status > >
Date
Msg-id 20080311150938.GS30211@svr2.hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: > o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status > >  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add: > o Add SQLSTATE severity to PGconn return status > >
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:55:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Why do we keep the TODO file with the source code?  Wouldn't it make
> >> more sense to store it separately?
> 
> > No idea --- it has always been there because it relates directly to the
> > source.
> 
> I kinda like the fact that the diffs get posted to pgsql-committers;
> it provides an easy chance to complain if the TODO description is off
> base, which isn't too unusual.

I personally find that quite annoying :-) For each commit we get both the
diff posted to committers, and the reply from Bruce saying "Added to TODO".
Both of which also contani the actual text...

Ok, you're going to be soooo surprised to hear this from me... But...

How about we move it to the wiki. AFAIK we can still lock it down to who
can edit it if we want to (which may for the TODO certainly be a good
idea). You can still get diffs. I think you can get them in the mail if you
want it (using watches), and I think you can also get it as an RSS feed.


> What I'd like to have taken out of CVS is all the FAQs ... I find the
> diff traffic on those to be noise.  But others probably see that
> differently.

+1 (at least, I'd + more than 1 if I was allowed to)

Once again, to the big surprise of a lot of people I'm sure, how about the
wiki?

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Heikki Linnakangas"
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: LISTEN vs. two-phase commit