Re: TODO list (was Re: Contributing with code)

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:02 PM, David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > It probably needs three sub-sections. Fist the raw ideas put forth by
> > people not capable of implementation but needing capabilities; these get
> > moved to one of two sections: ideas that have gotten some attention by
> core
> > that have merit but don't have development interest presently; and one
> like
> > this that have gotten the some attention and that core doesn't feel
> would be
> > worth maintaining even if someone was willing to develop it. We already
> > have this in practice but maybe a bit more formality would help.
> >
> > I'm not seeing that having it, even if incorrect, does harm.
>
> It causes people to waste time developing features we don't want.
>

We don't want them at all, or we just don't want a naive implementation of
them?

If we don't want them at all, then surely we should remove those items. Or
move them to the bottom of the page, where there is a section just for such
things. That way people can at least see that it has been considered and
rejected. And for things that we do want, it is nice to have links to the
emails of where it was discussed/attempted before. This is especially
useful because searching the archives is very inefficient due to nearly
every word you want to search on being a stop word or a very common word
with many meanings. It is much easier to find it on the todo list if it is
there than to search the archives.

>
> It also has a note at the top saying we think it's complete, but we
> don't think that, or I don't think it anyway.
>

Yeah, I don't care for that, either.

Cheers,

Jeff