On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:52 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <m...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 18:29, Jacob Champion > <jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > - "dblink" seems overly specific compared to the others. > > It seemed roughly as specific as postgres_fdw to me. Maybe we should > make sure they are grouped more alphabetically.
Oh, I actually missed that postgres_fdw was in the list. Originally the tags dropdown menu showed no scrollbar for me, so all I could see or search were the first six or so... I'm not sure what happened, but that changed sometime today. So... we have a lot more tags than I thought we did. I'll have to give the current list some more thought. > > - "Backport" seems strange. That's what the Version column is for, no? > > I still don't know how I'm supposed to use the version column (e.g. > what is the difference between stable and pg19), and it seems out of > date or not filled in half of the time. So I'd rather have it replaced > with tags with clear intent. Maybe have backport tags for each > Postgres version instead of "Backport - PG16" etc. The assumption > being, if it doesn't have a backport tag, then it should go into > master. Personally, I would much rather that information be coded separately from the tags system. I don't want the CF page filled with a bazillion "Backport - 15" "Backport - 16" "Backport - 17" tags... I'd like the tags to convey immediately useful information that we can't currently get somewhere else, and I'd also like them not to rot over time. > > - "Comments Only" feels somehow... standoffish? defensive? How about > > "Comments [Requested/Needed]" or something similar? > > I meant this as "This patch changes only comments", the hover text > also explains that once selected. Oh, I hadn't realized that was hoverable. I'm not sure that's very discoverable at the moment. --Jacob
