Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-www by date

  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 ?