| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Learning curves and such (was Re: pgFoundry) |
| Date: | 2005-05-18 00:46:18 |
| Message-ID: | 428A905A.5070707@samurai.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brendan Jurd wrote:
> What's the basis of this objection to a web-based dev management
> system?
Beyond "the core developers want to stick to email", I think there is a
good reason that we should stick primarily to email for project
management: Bugzilla and similar systems are "point to point", whereas a
mailing list is multicast[1]. When someone submits a patch or a bug
report to a mailing list, any of the developers can see the report,
discuss it, and contribute to resolving it. More often than not, a
web-based interface like Bugzilla leads to a single "bug master", who
does most of this work by themselves. Besides the fact we don't have
such a person, it would also mean that knowledge of bugs/patches and the
discussion about resolving issues is distributed among a smaller pool of
people.
There is definitely room for improvement; submitted patches do
occasionally fall through the cracks, for example. I would personally be
interested in a "bug-tracking system" that is closer to a shared email
archive. Individuals would send mail to a mailing list and other people
would reply and eventually resolve the thread, as happens now. The
process would be slightly more formalized: there would be a way to
specify a few commands via email to close/open/resolve/etc. reports, and
some kind of interface (perhaps web-based) for viewing unresolved
issues, searching through issues, etc. But the point is that the current
system works well; this would just be a slight formalization of existing
procedures (we don't *want* a revolutionary change, nor do we need one).
I think the administrative overhead wouldn't be too high, either.
I'm not sure which existing systems fit this model (suggestions are
welcome) -- email needs to be the primary interface, not an afterthought
(as is often the case). Perhaps RT would work, I'm not sure.
-Neil
[1] Hat-tip to Andrew Morton's keynote at LCA, which made this point
effectively.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Bertheau | 2005-05-18 00:59:38 | Re: patches for items from TODO list |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-17 23:37:40 | Re: Learning curves and such (was Re: pgFoundry) |