Re: Pruning the TODO list

On 15 June 2012 03:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:

>> I am planning to work on the below Todo list item...
...
>> Suggest me if my understanding is correct?
>
> I guess my first question is: why do we need this?  There are lots of
> things in the TODO list that someone wanted once upon a time, but
> they're not all actually important.  Do you have reason to believe
> that this one is?  It's been six years since that email, so it's worth
> asking if this is actually relevant.

The current TODO list is close to worthless and needs substantial
pruning or even complete truncation. Or massive redesign.

The above shows a recent attempt to fix one of the items on the TODO
list, which many people have then spent time questioning. That is just
a waste of time for *all* concerned.

I see many items on there that have been there for eight years and longer.

The situation is now so bad that many experienced developers ignore
the list completely. Robert's answer is the final nail in that coffin;
I agree with him.

ISTM that we should prune the list right down to nothing, or very,
very few entries. We must have a TODO list that we can trust to save
us time. I don't want to see any more people waste their time on
issues that aren't really wanted. At the moment we have lots of false
positives and so waste time and bring the TODO list into disrepute. It
would be better to have a compact list where every item was reasonably
accepted, so we can begin to trust it again. Trusting the TODO list is
what brought me my first patch, and I think it could and should be the
same with others.

Can Tom go through the list and archive items no longer considered
likely to fly? A simple triage is all that is needed here. Or would
you like me or another to do this?

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On tor, 2012-06-21 at 15:01 +0800, Simon Riggs wrote:
> ISTM that we should prune the list right down to nothing, or very,
> very few entries. We must have a TODO list that we can trust to save
> us time. I don't want to see any more people waste their time on
> issues that aren't really wanted. At the moment we have lots of false
> positives and so waste time and bring the TODO list into disrepute. It
> would be better to have a compact list where every item was reasonably
> accepted, so we can begin to trust it again. Trusting the TODO list is
> what brought me my first patch, and I think it could and should be the
> same with others.

Discussing the merits and design of a feature is half the work, so one
shouldn't expect all the things on the TODO list to be completely
discussed. Otherwise someone would have typed in the code already. So
we just need to clarify to readers that the list are items worth
thinking about, not items needing someone to type in some code. The
archive links that should accompany most items should contain hints
about how far discussion has progressed.

Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to prune the TODO list regularly,
such as after a release. We used to do that a bit, not so much lately,
perhaps. But everyone is invited to contribute to that.

Note, however, that even in well-maintained bug tracking systems,
garbage and obsolete items accumulate over time, so some maintenance of
this kind would still be necessary.

On 21 June 2012 08:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to prune the TODO list regularly,
> such as after a release.  We used to do that a bit, not so much lately,
> perhaps.  But everyone is invited to contribute to that.

The idea is to remove contentious issues from the list, to avoid the
waste of time.

I don't believe everyone can do that, not even close. That's why I
raise it here, rather than just doing it.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 21 June 2012 08:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to prune the TODO list regularly,
>> such as after a release. We used to do that a bit, not so much lately,
>> perhaps. But everyone is invited to contribute to that.

> The idea is to remove contentious issues from the list, to avoid the
> waste of time.

The thing is, a lot of stuff gets punted to the TODO list *because*
it's contentious, ie there's not consensus on what to do. If there
were consensus we might've just done it already. I'm not sure we want
to remove such entries, though perhaps somehow marking them as debatable
would be a good thing.

There may well be stuff on the list that is no longer very relevant in
today's world, but somebody would have to go through it item by item
to decide which ones those are. I'm not volunteering.

regards, tom lane

On 21 June 2012 15:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 21 June 2012 08:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to prune the TODO list regularly,
>>> such as after a release.  We used to do that a bit, not so much lately,
>>> perhaps.  But everyone is invited to contribute to that.
>
>> The idea is to remove contentious issues from the list, to avoid the
>> waste of time.
>
> The thing is, a lot of stuff gets punted to the TODO list *because*
> it's contentious, ie there's not consensus on what to do.  If there
> were consensus we might've just done it already.  I'm not sure we want
> to remove such entries, though perhaps somehow marking them as debatable
> would be a good thing.
>
> There may well be stuff on the list that is no longer very relevant in
> today's world, but somebody would have to go through it item by item
> to decide which ones those are.  I'm not volunteering.

<smiles> Understood

I'll have a play. Maybe I should just go with the idea of "Simon's
TODO List" - stuff I personally think is worth working on, and leave
it at that.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 21 June 2012 15:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 21 June 2012 08:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> Nonetheless, it would be a good idea to prune the TODO list regularly,
>>>> such as after a release.  We used to do that a bit, not so much lately,
>>>> perhaps.  But everyone is invited to contribute to that.
>>
>>> The idea is to remove contentious issues from the list, to avoid the
>>> waste of time.
>>
>> The thing is, a lot of stuff gets punted to the TODO list *because*
>> it's contentious, ie there's not consensus on what to do.  If there
>> were consensus we might've just done it already.  I'm not sure we want
>> to remove such entries, though perhaps somehow marking them as debatable
>> would be a good thing.
>>
>> There may well be stuff on the list that is no longer very relevant in
>> today's world, but somebody would have to go through it item by item
>> to decide which ones those are.  I'm not volunteering.
>
> <smiles> Understood
>
> I'll have a play. Maybe I should just go with the idea of "Simon's
> TODO List" - stuff I personally think is worth working on, and leave
> it at that.

+1 for that approach. I have a page on the wiki which is irregularly
updated and contains a somewhat random list of things that I think are
worth doing. I think it would be great to have similar lists for
other developers, even if they're not 100% up-to-date or accurate.

I wouldn't be averse to pruning 10% of the TODO list, maybe even 20%,
but I think there's a lot of stuff on there that's actually worth
doing, even if much of it needs discussion before it's implemented.

Novices - and even experienced developers, sometimes - tend to make
the mistake of deciding to implement X, as if it were self-evident
that X is a good thing. The TODO list can feed that misapprehension,
but isn't really the source of it. Rather, we all like to believe
that our own ideas are awesome. This is frequently true, but not so
frequently as we like to believe.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 22 June 2012 14:15, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Rather, we all like to believe
> that our own ideas are awesome.  This is frequently true, but not so
> frequently as we like to believe.

Hmm, for me, awesome has nothing to do with it. I strive to produce
useful features that address real problems in the simplest way. I
think most of my proposals are fairly obvious to database users. If I
find a solution, I push it, but not because I found it, or I think its
awesome.

The idea that I'm scratching my own itches is mostly wrong. For me,
this is about working on the features that Postgres needs and then
doing them, with a sense of urgency that seems to be slightly ahead of
the curve.

It's not just reviewers that work hard on tasks they may not be
interested in yet believe are for the common good.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 06/22/2012 09:45 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 22 June 2012 14:15, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Rather, we all like to believe
>> that our own ideas are awesome. This is frequently true, but not so
>> frequently as we like to believe.
> Hmm, for me, awesome has nothing to do with it. I strive to produce
> useful features that address real problems in the simplest way. I
> think most of my proposals are fairly obvious to database users. If I
> find a solution, I push it, but not because I found it, or I think its
> awesome.
>
> The idea that I'm scratching my own itches is mostly wrong. For me,
> this is about working on the features that Postgres needs and then
> doing them, with a sense of urgency that seems to be slightly ahead of
> the curve.
>
> It's not just reviewers that work hard on tasks they may not be
> interested in yet believe are for the common good.

That's true of many developers.

I think the real problem with the TODO list is that some people see it
as some sort of official roadmap, and it really isn't. Neither is there
anything else that is.

cheers

andrew

Hi,

On 06/22/2012 05:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think the real problem with the TODO list is that some people see it
> as some sort of official roadmap, and it really isn't. Neither is there
> anything else that is.

To me, it looks like TODO is just a misnomer. The file should be named
TODISCUSS, IDEAS, or something. But the current file name implies consensus.

Wouldn't renaming solve that kind of misunderstanding? (..in the vain of
"address(ing) real problems in the simplest way"..)

Regards

Markus Wanner

Le samedi 30 juin 2012 11:39:09, Markus Wanner a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On 06/22/2012 05:38 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I think the real problem with the TODO list is that some people see it
> > as some sort of official roadmap, and it really isn't. Neither is there
> > anything else that is.
>
> To me, it looks like TODO is just a misnomer. The file should be named
> TODISCUSS, IDEAS, or something. But the current file name implies
> consensus.
>
> Wouldn't renaming solve that kind of misunderstanding? (..in the vain of
> "address(ing) real problems in the simplest way"..)

+1

--
Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/
PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation

Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> To me, it looks like TODO is just a misnomer. The file should be named
> TODISCUSS, IDEAS, or something. But the current file name implies consensus.

> Wouldn't renaming solve that kind of misunderstanding?

I think there are enough references to "the TODO list" in our archives
and elsewhere that we can't just go and rename it. Also, it's not the
case that *all* the stuff there lacks consensus.

It'd be better to put a disclaimer at the front pointing out that some
of these items are unfinished because of lack of consensus, not just
lack of code.

regards, tom lane

On lör, 2012-06-30 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It'd be better to put a disclaimer at the front pointing out that some
> of these items are unfinished because of lack of consensus, not just
> lack of code.

There is a fairly extensive disclaimer at the top of the wiki page.
Maybe it was added recently, though.

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:46:12PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2012-06-30 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It'd be better to put a disclaimer at the front pointing out that some
> > of these items are unfinished because of lack of consensus, not just
> > lack of code.
>
> There is a fairly extensive disclaimer at the top of the wiki page.
> Maybe it was added recently, though.

Yes, Simon added it a week ago.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +