On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > Unless you especially want to self-impose the same tight resolution > > schedule > > that 9.6 regressions experience, let's move this to the "Non-bugs" section. > > Which do you prefer? I don't think the opportunity for more documentation > > in > > light of 7117685 constitutes a regression, and I don't want "Open Issues" > > to > > double as a parking lot for slow-moving non-regressions. > > > > Well, if we *don't* do the rewrite before we release it, then we have to > instead put information about the new version of the functions into the old > structure I think. > > So I think it's an open issue.
Works for me... [This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Magnus, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be discovered at any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of the ship date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days of this message. Thanks. > But maybe we should have a separate section > on the open items list for documentation issues? I tihnk we've had that > some times before. Maybe. If the list were starting to get crowded with doc-only items, that would certainly have benefits. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
