Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date

Tom Lane said:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> C. BZ does not have any PG support in its default branch, and the RH
>> port is currently unmaintained.
>
> I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ
> maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of people who
> regularly use bugzilla.redhat.com.
>
> If you want to reject BZ because you don't like it, fine, but please
> don't allege that it's unmaintained or that we'd have to put our own
> resources into maintaining it. There *will* be BZ-on-PG running at Red
> Hat for the foreseeable future. Obviously Dave would like to get the
> port folded back upstream, and it looks like that will happen
> eventually, but we need not fear being alone in running BZ-on-PG
> meanwhile.
>

*nod*

The RH port is a few minor versions behind the mainline BZ project. I
suspect that reasonable Pg support is not too far away in the mainline
code. Dave Lawrence is in fact working actively on that, as I saw from a
flurry of email just the other day.

There seems to me to be sufficient resistance to BZ on other grounds to
make the matter moot. Personally, I have long learned to live with its
quirkiness and the klunky interface, and I don't find the lack of an email
interface an issue, but it is clear that others have much graver
objections on these and other grounds.

cheers

andrew