From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
Date: | 2004-02-27 19:05:02 |
Message-ID: | 200402271105.02335.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Paul,
> Your main concern about RT isn't true, at least here at my office. I
> installed RT, with no prior experience with any OSS tracker, back in
> October, and it worked on PostgreSQL the first time. (PostgreSQL support was
> one of the main reasons I chose it to track issues on my
> PostgreSQL/Perl-based webapp.) I made this point in an earlier post in this
> thread. There is no conversion effort needed with RT 3.0.6, it just works on
> PostgreSQL.
My apologies, then! I was operating off of the statements of others, and the
fact that the only RT impelementations I've used were running on MySQL. So,
questions:
1) can you compare/contrast RT vs. BZ vs. Simplified bug-tracking, like
GForge?
2) What help, if any, would we be able to get in supporting RT from the RT
community?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-27 19:12:31 | Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-02-27 18:48:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-27 19:12:31 | Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-02-27 19:04:07 | Re: Upgraded Site..any news ? |