Re: 8.2 features status

Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> Wouldn't a thread reply saying something like "Bruce, can we add this as a
>> TODO with the following wording: blah blah blah" likely suffice?

That's pretty much how it's done now ...

> Yeah - and/or a patch to TODO or the relevant TODO.detail (I can't see
> why that is hard or onerous). Plus it is seen by a wide audience, some
> of whom might not be tracking any wiki (very likely if there end up
> being several wiki's....)

Yeah, the main problem I have with TODO-on-a-wiki is the question of
quality control. I've been heard to complain that "the TODO list
consists of everything Bruce thinks is a good idea", but for the most
part things don't get onto TODO without some rough consensus on the
mailing lists --- at least about the nature of the problem, if not
the exact shape of the solution. I'm worried about a wiki having pages
that have not been peer-reviewed at all. In some respects that wouldn't
matter, but what of our hypothetical newbie developer coming along and
taking entries at face value? If you don't know the project well enough
to recognize bogus entries, you could still end up wasting your time
on silly ideas that will get rejected once seen by a wider audience.

regards, tom lane