On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:45:24PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:16:41 -0500
> Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given that the TODO list is the official compilation of things that
> > need to get done, ISTM that anything warranting a TODO or XXX in the
> > code shoul
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:16:41 -0500
Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the TODO list is the official compilation of things that
> need to get done, ISTM that anything warranting a TODO or XXX in the
> code should probably be on the TODO list.
There are a wide class of possible imp
On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:24 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
The comment, "This should be improved someday" sure sounds like a
TODO to me.
I don't know if it should make it to the TODO doc, as that lists
high-level/abstract feature-request-like items.
Given that the TODO list is the official compilati
The comment, "This should be improved someday" sure sounds like a TODO to
me.
I don't know if it should make it to the TODO doc, as that lists
high-level/abstract feature-request-like items.
Probably I should stop acting on impulse here. Hey, can someone around here
lend me his rock!! ( no offen
"Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This just so that somebody looking for TODO items in the source can find
> this one too.
If you're looking for TODO items, why wouldn't you be looking in the
TODO document?
regards, tom lane
---(end of
This just so that somebody looking for TODO items in the source can find
this one too.
Regards,
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | yahoo }.com
TODO.patch
Description: Binary data
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help
