| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 21:23:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1307136183.32120.14.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2011-06-03 at 16:42 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Just to throw out a crazy idea, there has been talk of bug ids. What
> if a thread, made up of multiple message ids, was in fact the bug id,
> and the first message in the thread (ignoring month boundaries) was
> the definitive bug id, but any of the message ids could be used to
> represent the definitive one.
That way, if someone breaks a thread, you can't reattach the
conversation to a bug. And you couldn't take a thread off a bug or to a
new bug.
A heavily email-based tracker such as debbugs works almost like that,
but for those mentioned reasons, it's simpler to have the messages
belonging to a bug stored separately.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-06-03 21:33:02 | Re: Getting a bug tracker for the Postgres project |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-03 21:02:04 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |