On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 02:10:08PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > >> Personally I think it would be just fine if we had only the wiki copy
> > > > >> and forgot about shipping it in tarballs.
> > > >
> > > > > The problem with not shipping the TODO file at all is that TODO gives
> > > > > users a list of all known bugs/missing features in that major release.
> > > >
> > > > This seems to me to be nonsense. You've never maintained the
> > > > back-branch versions of the TODO list, so they're out of date anyway
> > > > --- ie, they don't account for problems discovered post-release.
> > >
> > > It is a best effort with our limited resources.
> > >
> > > > In any case I've always thought that the TODO was developer-oriented
> > > > documentation, not something users would read. If there's a shortcoming
> > > > in a feature, it ought to be documented in the SGML manual.
> > >
> > > It typically isn't, except for major issues, again due to lack of
> > > resources.
> >
> > I think you will have to search for a long time to find anybody who
> > actually uses it like that. I'm willing to bet that well over 95% of the
> > people who read the TODO only read it on the website. (potentially
> > excluding the actual patch-contributors, but those aren't included in your
> > argument anyway)
>
> We can always remove it from the tarball and see if anyone complains.
I think that's a "reasonable default". If we do get complains, we'll figure
a way to get it back. It's not hard to get info out of a wiki.
//Magnus
