Re: PostgreSQL's bug tracker

Well, if we're considering some kind of trial stage I don't see why we
couldn't setup a few different trackers and see what people think.

Of course, that could well be setting us up for a bickshed big enough to
play NFL football in...

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 10:10:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > I have thought about that, however I would at least at some level want a
> > blessing. For example, if we did that would we do it with
> > pgFoundry bug tracking? Or would we use Trac? Or Bugzilla?
>
> I think the main thing that's killed previous proposals in this line
> is that we could never get a consensus on which bug tracker to use.
> Personally I'd be OK with Bugzilla, since I use it at Red Hat already,
> but I know that some hate it violently.
>
> There are also a set of issues involved in integrating any such project
> with the pgsql-bugs list, which in the estimation of many of us is not
> broken and does not need fixing.
>
> Old-timers will recall that we already had one bad experience with an
> early open-source bug tracker, which has left people a bit shy of the
> concept too. I think a large part of that had to do with confusion
> between the purposes of bug *reporting* and bug *tracking*. A mailing
> list does very well for reporting issues that might be bugs, but not so
> well for tracking the status of acknowledged bugs.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461