Re: cutting down the TODO list thread

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 11:57 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:46:34AM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> >

> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/So,_you_want_to_be_a_developer%3F#TODOs

> > to:
> > "It's worth checking if the feature of interest is found in the TODO
list on
> > our wiki: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TODO. That list contains some
known
> > PostgreSQL bugs, some feature requests, and some things we are not even
sure we
> > want. Many entries have a link to an email thread containing prior
discussion,
> > or perhaps attempts that for whatever reason didn't make it as far as
getting
> > committed."
> >
> > ...which might make more sense if moved below the "brand new features"
section.
>
> I think we just point them at the TODO list and they will read the top
> of the list first, no? I think you are right that we updated the top of
> the TODO but didn't update the places that link to it. I am thinking we
> should just trim down the text linking to it and let the top of the TODO
> list do its job.

Okay. How about:

"It's worth checking if the feature of interest is found in the TODO list
on our wiki: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/TODO. The entries there often
have additional information about the feature and may point to reasons why
it hasn't been implemented yet."

> > --
> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ
> >
> > 1)
> > from:
> > "What areas need work?
> > Outstanding features are detailed in Todo.
> >
> > You can learn more about these features by consulting the archives, the
SQL
> > standards and the recommended texts (see books for developers)."
> >
> > to:
> > ??? -> For "what areas need work?", we need to have a different answer,
but I'm
> > not sure what it is.
>
> Wow, I would not send a new person to the SQL standard docs. ;-) I am
> thinking we just don't have a good answer to this so let's say less.

Do I understand right that we could just remove this entire section "What
areas need work?"?

> > 2)
> > from:
> > "What do I do after choosing an item to work on?
> >
> > Send an email to pgsql-hackers with a proposal for what you want to do
> > (assuming your contribution is not trivial). Working in isolation is not
> > advisable because others might be working on the same TODO item, or you
might
> > have misunderstood the TODO item. In the email, discuss both the
internal
> > implementation method you plan to use, and any user-visible changes (new
> > syntax, etc)."
> >
> > to:
> > "What do I do after choosing an area to work on?
> >
> > Send an email to pgsql-hackers with a proposal for what you want to do
> > (assuming your contribution is not trivial). Working in isolation is not
>
> Can new people identify trivial?

I'd say they have some idea about that, since we do regularly get typo
fixes and doc clarifications. Sure there is some grey area, but I don't
think the dividing point is important. The important thing is, we also
sometimes get large and invasive patches without design discussion, which
we want to discourage.

> I can now see that just removing the [E] label totally is the right
> answer. Yes, there might be an easy item on there, but the fact we have
> three labeled and they are not easy makes me thing [E] is causing more
> problems than it solves.

Okay, having heard no objections I'll remove it.

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com