Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> Feature
> * Commits (list of hashes)
> * Developers (with company affiliation, if desired)
> * Reviewers (if any)
> * Sponsors [optional]
> * Detailed description of feature [optional]
>
I think burdening the initial implementation here with aiming at
detailed descriptions will result in two problems. It makes it less
likely the whole thing will get built, as that's the most painful part
to edit down usefully And it's going to make the resulting page an
unreadable giant. The reason I liked making the feature name a URL
pointing to the commit is so people could click through to see that when
desired.
The idea of starting with SQL is similarly more complicated than I think
this idea will support until proven to work. I'd absolutely like to
have a comprehensive feature/commit/version matrix for PostgreSQL in SQL
so I can manipulate it for a lot of reasons; it's a great concept. But
if someone has to build one in order to make a prototype of this, the
concept will probably have bloated itself into being impractical for
this release. No idea where the manpower to do that is going to come
from. Expecting to account for every commit or feature like this is I'd
consider a good long-term goal, but not something that's going to happen
for 9.1.
Someone is welcome to correct me by doing it. I'm going to continue
aiming for the simplest things that is useful, and hope that's a small
enough target to accomplish.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us