| From: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Learning curves and such (was Re: pgFoundry) |
| Date: | 2005-05-17 23:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200505180906.29273.mr-russ@pws.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 18 May 2005 04:31 am, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> > Last time it came up I thought the problem was that there was not a
> > consensus on *which* bugtracker to use.
>
> Or whether to use one. Roughly 1/3 bugzilla, 1/3 something else, and 1/3
> don't want a bugtracker. And, among the people who didn't want bugzilla,
> some were vehemently opposed to it. Bugtrackers discussed included GForge,
> bugzilla, RT, Roundup, Jura (they offered a free license) and a few I don't
> remember.
>
> > Incidentally, I'm not advocating we use bugzilla (if anything I think
> > I'd lean towards using RT), but this seems like a good opportunity to
> > note that as of a week or two ago bugzilla's HEAD branch supports using
> > PostgreSQL as its backing store, and this will be maintained.
>
> One of the things which came out of the bugtracker discussion is that anything
> we use must have the ability for developers to interact 100% by e-mail, as
> some critical developers will not use a web interface.
>
Doesn't pgfoundry offer this? If not in 3.3, I'm sure it's in Gforge 4.0, or 4.1 which will be
released soon.
Regards
Russell
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2005-05-17 23:13:59 | Re: Learning curves and such (was Re: pgFoundry) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-17 22:54:07 | Re: pgFoundry |